Women In Ministry

I recently came across a blog article by Pastor Brian Mann who although he is a complementarian, admits that God affirms women’s preaching.  Mann writes:

I am not sure we are completely biblical in many circles concerning the way God views women in ministry.  And considering this subject, there is much to learn.

Pastor Mann makes an excellent point about the personification of wisdom in Proverbs and it is a point that I think we should make note of:

“Wisdom shouts in the street, She lifts her voice in the square; At the head of the noisy streets she cries out; At the entrance of the gates in the city, she utters her sayings” (Proverbs 1:20-21 NASB).

Here we have Wisdom personified as a woman.  And she is in places like ‘the square’,  ‘the noisy streets’,  and ‘the entrance of the gates in the city’.  These are places that are places of business.  It is where the elders gathered in 4:1-2 to decide on the fate of Ruth and Naomi.  And it had become a regular place where there elders of the city would gather and men would do business, legal business.  And to be known as a man by the elders or to be an elder of the city was indeed a particular privilege (See Prov. 31:22-23).

After giving the account where the women were sent forth as witnesses to the disciples of the good news of the resurrection, Pastor Mann states that the men did not believe the women.  Then he writes:

The above account shows the women sharing the good news that Jesus is alive, but it is not recieved, but disbelieved because of women bringing the news.  It says “they had not believed those…”  ‘those’ being the women who were telling them that Jesus had risen.  And it says that Jesus ‘reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart.’  This tells me that if I am not willing to hear the good news of Jesus Christ from a woman that Jesus is saying I have a hard heart and I am unbelieving.  I should not be unwilling to hear the good news from anyone.  When I came to know Jesus Christ, I just remembered, a woman counseled my wife and I concerning the Gospel.

While I do not agree with Brian Mann that there are “roles” set out in the bible (no such term is ever used in scripture) or that because of “roles” that women cannot be pastors, I do applaud him for taking the first step to encourage his church to set aside cultural and religious norms in order to listen to women who preach the truth of God’s words.

But, to humble us perhaps, a woman is seen in Proverbs 1 as preaching; why?  You answer.  It has to at least be to make us see that we need to learn from everyone, and if a woman is preaching in the streets the very truth of God it would do us wise to listen to her and put aside both our cultural and religious norms.

God’s Spirit is indeed working in even some of the churches which have been the strongholds against women in ministry.  He has opened the door for His women to be heard.  The truth of what Brian Mann has written about Proverbs is an encouraging word.  May the Lord Jesus continue to open doors wide open for his women “sons” to minister God’s gifts to the church.

Send article as PDF to

How does 1 Peter 3:5, 6 with the Bible’s use of the word “obey” affect wives and in particular women in ministry?

Some say that wives are to “obey” their husbands in everything and that this makes the husband the “lord” or “master” of the wife.  Many hierarchists will reason that it follows then that if a wife is to obey everything her “master” tells her, if she were to be in a leadership position, then the husband would be in the position to control her decisions and her position as he is the wife’s “lord”.  But is unquestioning obedience and a role of the husband’s “lordship” what Peter is speaking of in 1 Peter 3:5, 6?

To determine the meaning of these two verses, we must first look at the complete context from the book of 1 Peter.  The book starts with a statement by Peter that Christians are chosen to obey Jesus Christ.  Obedience is a big part of Peter’s instruction and it is always ultimately an obedience to Christ.

1 Peter 1:1, 2  Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens,…who are chosen…to obey Jesus Christ…

Another important theme from 1 Peter is service toward others.  In 1 Peter 1:10-12 Peter reveals that the Prophets were not serving themselves, but us.

1 Peter 1:12  It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you…

1 Peter 3:3  Your adornment must not be merely external–braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

1 Peter 3:4  but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

1 Peter 3:5  For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves…

1 Peter 3:5 …being submissive to their own husbands;

1 Peter 3:6  just as Sarah obeyed Abraham…

Genesis 21:9  Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking.

Genesis 21:10  Therefore she said to Abraham, “Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac.”

Genesis 21:11  The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son.

Genesis 21:12  But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.

1 Peter 3:6…calling him lord…

1 Peter 3:6…and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

1 Pet 3:6, in the exhortation to Christian women married to non-Christian men: “fear no intimidation [from the men]“

1 Peter 3:8  To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;

1 Peter 3:9  not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

Honor, then is to be given one to another in humility, in brotherly love and in blessing each other in the fear of God.  This is required from all Christians.

What 1 Peter 3:5, 6 does not say:

1.  Peter doesn’t say that the husband is the wife’s  master. As Christians we have only one Lord and Master and that is Jesus.

1 Corinthians 8:6  yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Send article as PDF to

When does explaining God’s word make one an enemy of the church?  According to Mike Seaver, a woman who is allowed to teach the word of God to men, even if she is under the authority of her husband and even if she has received authority from her pastor to teach the bible (and assuming her pastor is monitoring her teaching), is like a drunken adulterer ministering to God’s people.  [Mike Seaver has written a blog post at CBMW identifying the issue of women teaching the bible to men as the undercover enemy of the church.  Mike is a pastor at CrossWay Community Church in Charlotte, North Carolina and posts regularly at Role Calling see his original article here.]

According to Seaver the church has been breathing “feminist air” and this has caused many churches to become “semigalitarian”.  [According to Seaver, semigalitarianism is defined as those people (both men and women) who say that a woman should not be allowed to preach in a church on her own authority, but if she claims to be under the authority of her senior pastor (who is a man) and under the authority of her husband (who is obviously a man) then it is okay for her to teach men in the church.]  But while Seaver is complaining of “feminist air”, he has unwittingly become infected with a “disease” that allows Christians to see passages of scripture as “clear” (1 Timothy 2:12-13) instead of as a complex passage in its complete context (1 Timothy 2:11-15).

The attitude of identifying godly women as enemies of the church is clearly an aggressive stand equating a woman explaining the meaning of the scriptures with a drunken adulterer.  It reminds me of the prejudiced view of the orthodox Jews who believe that only men are allowed to touch the Torah.

Apparently touching the Bible by giving an explanation of the meaning of a passage now makes one an “undercover enemy”.  How far has the church fallen that some feel free to attack our sisters in Christ identifying them as enemies?  Notice that Seaver says nothing about whether the woman’s teaching is correct or not.  He is lumping true bible teaching in with error because it is the vessel who is the enemy, not the words she speaks.  It is the mere fact that she would touch the Word of God in public that makes her an enemy.  This is the same tradition of the Pharisees who added a restriction on the teaching of God’s Word.

Seavers goes on to say:

Semigalitarianism (Semi-Egalitarianism) is taking place all over the United States in churches that claim to believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, but they seem to make an assumption that they can declare who has authority in the church to teach.

It is the Word of God that has given the body of Christ authority to operate in our gifts.  Who dares to claim to have the authority to deny gifted members of the body of Christ who are living in union with Christ, the permission to teach?  Seavers appears to be one of the elite group of males who can deny permission.

There is one major problem to this position. It is 1 Timothy 2:12-13 where the Apostle Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve.” You see, this verse is in the Bible and to neglect this verse is to disobey the Bible and to disobey the Bible is to disobey the God of the Bible. The church is never given the right to say someone has authority to teach when the Bible says the exact opposite.

Let’s test Mike Seaver’s words and see if they match up with the Bible.

1.  Mr. Seaver has taken two verses out of their context and adds a meaning that is not there.  Where does the Bible say that women in general are not given permission to teach the Bible?

2.  How is it possible in the male patriarchial view for women to teach other women without a male supervising these women teachers thus there must be at least some men who are required to listen to women teach?  How does this fit in with 1 Timothy 2:12?

3.  Where is the idea that a woman is not allowed to teach the Bible given a second or third witness in the scripture?  Why is every general prohibition repeated in the scriptures but the prohibition of women teaching the bible has no second witness?

4.  Doesn’t the direct permission given by Paul allowing every member to prophesy (so that all may learn from them), contradict an assumed and unconfirmed prohibition against godly Christian women’s permission to explain the Bible?  Doesn’t ignoring Paul’s authority to allow women to teach in the assembly mean that one is disobeying the Bible and disobeying the God of the Bible?

1 Corinthians 14:31  For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

5.  Doesn’t Paul’s permission for all to speak and prophesy in the convicting power of the Holy Spirit override any man-made rule that prohibits women from explaining God’s Words from the Bible?

1 Corinthians 14:23  Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

1 Corinthians 14:24  But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;

Mike Seaver goes on to give his opinion about the clearness of the prohibition:

If we start trying to reinterpret one passage of Scripture, what stops us from reinterpreting the rest of it? The problem with Semigalitarianism is not just that it has females teaching men in a Sunday School class or from the pulpit, it is that it is ignoring a clear biblical passage.

Is this passage really “clear”?  If it is so clear to Mike Seaver, then I wonder why he stopped with verse 13?   The passage is completely connected together with the words “for” “and” “but” “if”, so that the thought doesn’t end until verse 15.  Why would Mike Seaver state that this passage is so “clear” when verse 15 is considered to be one of the hardest passages of scripture to understand?  Why would he state so confidently that this passage is “clear” yet ignore the completion of the passage in verse 15 that the church at large has grappled with for several thousands years not able to come to a conscensus on what it means without the interpretations coming out contradicting  other “clear” bible passages?  If Mike Seaver thinks that this bible passage is so “clear” then perhaps he should present his interpretation of verse 15 which is the conclusion to the prohibition.  The fact that he must remove verse 15 before he declares the passage to be “clear” is a “clear” sign that he is twisting the passage himself removing the result that Paul expects from his prohibition in verse 12.  If Mr. Seaver is reading this, I challenge him to show me his “clear” interpretation of verse 15 and explain to all of us how verse 15 fits neatly into Paul’s prohibition.

I know many women who are excellent teachers (my wife being one of them) and they are to use their gifts to teach other women (Titus 2) and to care for their children, but there is a distinct absence in the Bible of a man promoting something opposite from what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12-13.

Mr. Seaver has interpreted 1 Timothy 2:12-13 out of its complete context in order to assert that men are not allowed to listen to women teaching the Bible.  If that is the case then there can be no male overseers for the entire congregation since no man would be allowed to listen and judge what a woman is teaching in order to correct her.  Is he really saying that no overseer is allowed to listen to the insights from scripture that a woman brings?  Then no male overseer can manage the household of God since they are restricted in listening to women teach.  We are left with a hopeless contradiction when we apply Mr. Seaver “undercover enemy” teaching.

Mr. Seaver sums up his article:

So here are some questions we must ask…because I think a lot of my conservative friends have not even thought through this issue.

Can a woman be a senior pastor in a church?
Can a woman teach in a church?
Can a woman teach men in a church?
Can a woman teach in the church if she is under the authority of the senior pastor and her husband?

When we step outside of the feminist air that we breathe everyday and into an honest look at what God’s Word says, I don’t think the answer is really that hard.

Notice that Mike Seaver says that there is an “answer” (singular) to these questions.  Apparently his answer to these questions is a “clear” no.  But the questions have been skewed since “church” is never defined as a building in the scriptures and the term “senior pastor” is not a biblical term.  Instead of the questions Mr. Seavers asks, let’s see how these questions should be asked from a biblical perspective.

1.  Can a woman be an overseer protecting the body of Christ? (In 1 Timothy 3:1 the term is “anyone” not “any male” aspires or seeks)

2.  Can a woman teach the body of Christ?  (1 Timothy 14:23, 31 in the assembly “all” may provide for the learning of the assembly)

3.  Can a woman teach men in the body of Christ?  (Acts 18:26 Priscilla not only taught the teacher Apollos but she corrected his errors implying that in this instance Priscilla did the work of an overseer instructing and correcting)

4.  Can a woman teach in the body of Christ if she is under the authority of an overseer and in the presence of her husband?  (There is no such prohibition in the scriptures that would disallow a woman presenting correct biblical understanding and if so Priscilla would have been chastized for disobeying God and scripture.  Also overseers are there to protect the body from error.  They are not to stop gifted individuals from using their gifts.)

I believe that the charge that godly Christian women who explain the Scriptures to the general assembly is an act of an “undercover enemy” is both divisive and is in direct contradiction to God’s Word that gives permission for all to prophesy from God’s word so that all may learn.

I also believe that Mr. Seaver has been influenced to be prejudiced against his sisters in Christ and that he hasn’t thoroughly thought through these issues.  The church has worked through their prejudice against Gentiles and slaves.  It took a long time to set aside the pride that some thought that they were more equal than others.  I believe that the Holy Spirit is working in the church today to bring the bride of Christ together without spot and wrinkle.  The teaching that women cannot teach the full body of Christ must be laid aside as it fails the scriptural test of truth.  The sooner that these men embrace their sisters in Christ, the sooner we can become one body without divisions.

Send article as PDF to

Recently I received an email from a woman who purchased my 4 DVD set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” and then wrote me about the impact that the DVDs had on her.  I was so touched by her testimony that I asked permission to share her story with the world.  I have removed her name as she requested anonymity because of her situation.  I hope that you will be encouraged and touched as I was when I read her story.

_____________________________________

Dear Cheryl,

I’m not sure if you are the one I should write to, but I wanted to let someone know that I watched the DVDs “Women in the Ministry” twice and my reactions to it.

For three days I was an emotional wreck.  I got angry, I cried, I’d stopped watching it and walked around the house talking to myself.  I fell to my knees and told God I didn’t understand.  I even was asked by others if I was feeling ok or if I was sick.  It tore me up inside.  Please, let me explain.

I am a woman in my fifties..My background is a lifetime of being in conservative, fundamental, baptist churches and have been married for thirty some years to a man with a similar background.  Our women are restricted in serving the Lord and are constricted to servant roles in our churches.  We should only wear skirts and dresses which must be mid calf.  We should not be bare armed although to the elbow short sleeves are permitted.  We may cut and style our hair, but it should be at least shoulder length.  We cannot preach, period, or teach males once they are 13 years of age and we cannot hold any type of leadership position, even on committees or panels.  A man (usually the husband of the woman who really needs to oversee the event or function) is usually appointed the position of leader even if it is only a figurehead.  We are taught that our roles are “separate, but, equal.”

Through the workings of the Lord (though some may say the devil) I came across your web site.  I was intrigued and ordered the DVD set WIM.  I have always thought that something wasn’t correct about the restriction we are forced to be under.  When I was a teenager, before I truly and fully understood this restriction, I felt called to be a missionary.  I felt sure I knew to whom I was called and where I was to go.  I counseled with my pastor as all good congregational members do and was shocked, confused and hurt to find out that I couldn’t be the missionary I felt led to become.  I was told that no mission board would back me because I was a single woman and that the only way I could be a missionary to the people I felt called to was if I married a man who was also called to the same.  But truth be told, I had to be wrong about my calling, because God calls men.  God prepares the heart of a woman to follower her husband into the mission field, but doesn’t allow her to answer the call of a leadership position because the Bible says so.  If I truly was called, it must be only to help my future husband in his ministries.

I couldn’t understand why God would do this, after all, men were as sinful in His sight as women were and women were just as equal in God’s sight as men.  I wanted to do what was right.  My choices were thin, I could either accept God’s Word or be in rebellion.  As time went on, I came to accept that men just might be more special to God than women.  So I pushed my “calling” aside and accepted my role as a woman in the church.  I married young, raised my children, helped my husband in his ministries, taught the 4 + 5 yr. old Sunday School, sang in the choir, played organ/piano for services, etc., etc., etc., but I never really had peace.  It was as if there was a “little tiff” between me and God.  It was as if I had a hole in my heart.  And when a man stood up behind the pulpit to preach on women and their roles, I would cringe, I would resent it and fight back the tears.  That lost, confused and hurt feeling I felt that day so long ago would rise to the surface.  I would tell myself that that was just my sin nature resisting the commands of God.  After all nobody likes to be told what to do.. I would then ask God to forgive me for being rebellious and I would force it all back down.

I watched the DVDs the first time with the reaction I mentioned at the beginning of this letter.  After all, this was not what I had been taught.  How could this be right?  How could Bible Scholars, men who had spent their whole life studying the Bible backwards and forwards, have missed this?  After I had settled down, a few days later, I watched the DVDs again with my Bible and a concordance with a Hebrew/Greek Bible Dictionary and I followed along.  Everything that was being discussed seemed correct and I greatly rejoiced.  The hole in my heart has started to heal, because I now know that man is behind the restriction, not God.

I, also, mourn.  For although I now embrace the truth and will defend any woman who would dare claim these teachings for her own, it’s too late for me.  I cannot do the same because to do so could mean I might lose my family.  If I could not convince them that these DVDs speak the truth, I would be labeled a heretic.

Oh how I do so wish that the Scriptures used in the DVDs were from the King James Version.  It would take a miracle for me to convince my husband or some other man from the church to watch these.  On the off chance a miracle would happen, as soon as the first Scripture is read and he/they realize its not KJV, they will dismiss it.  They will mock.  They will give no value to it.  It doesn’t matter that the study goes back into the Hebrew and the Greek, if the scriptures are not from the KJV then it is a work of Satan trying to corrupt the Word of the Lord.

Thank you so much for producing these DVDs.  They not only started a healing process in my life, but also, I am now wondering about other things that I have been taught as Bible truths.  Some are:  1. marriage.  This would seem to go with the WIM (How submnissive is submissiveness supposed to be?);  2. women’s apparel (How are we supposed to dress?);  3. KVJ verses other Bible Versions;  4. Pastor Rule. (Does he really have absolute authority?);  5.  Church Discipline (Is it necessary and, if so, what is the proper way to administer it.)  Perhaps you will consider making DVDs on these subjects.

I wish to know what church or denomination you are from.  Perhaps there is a church in my area I could attend, ifone day I am able to break away from mine.  It is so hard to attend now that I have watched the DVDs and know the truth.  A visiting evangelist made a statement in which he cruelly denounced women counseling men and the men of the congregation responded with a hearty “Amen.”  It hurt.

I pray that Christian men will have their eyes opened to the truth as they read their Bibles and put away their preconceived notions and beliefs.  I pray that they will soon liberate Christian women everywhere.  However, I feel like Moses.  I am looking over into the Promised Land, but I won’t see it in my lifetime.

In Christ,

(name removed by request)

Send article as PDF to

For those of you who are experiencing church abuse or know of someone who has experienced abuse from a church leader, Dr. Barb Orlowski has her book online at churchexiters.com for only a little while longer.  Barb is now working on the final stages of publishing her dissertation and so anyone interested in her research and work on ministering restoration to those who have been hurt by churches, or abusive and authoritarian leaders may want to view her material now before her book is removed from the internet.

Chapter 1 is called “What’s going on?

Chapter 2 is called “What do others say?“

Chapter 3 is called “What does the Bible say?“

Chapter 4 is called “What does the research say?“

Chapter 5 is called “What can we do about it?“

There is also an appendix 2 subtitled “What I have learned“

With all the shaking up that is going on in the church today, many are experiencing an unprecedented amount of abusive behavior by church leadership.  If you are experiencing hurt, confusion and a loss of trust know that you are not alone.  Dr. Orlowski’s web site and book may help you go through a healing process.  The healing doesn’t happen overnight but it is very good to know that what you are experiencing is not unique and the help that you can get from others can go a long way to “recovering spiritual harmony”.

Send article as PDF to

Some have wondered why “Chris” the complementarian stopped posting here.  Apparently he could not get his refutation of my work to stand in an interactive forum so he moved it over to a place where he could have the floor to himself.  He has posted a claim that he has refuted me in his post called A Refutation of Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12.

Chris is now posting under the name “Neopatriarch” and he describes his post as filling a need for those who are exasperated with me and my “associates”.  (Paula I think he is referring to your excellent refutation of his logical fallacies.)

This gives me an opportunity to examine Chris’ (aka Neopatriarch) claims that he has “refuted” me.  Let’s have a look to see if what he has to say is worthy of his lofty claims.

The first thing that Neopatriarch states is that interaction with me is exasperation and he links to my second debate mp3 with Matt Slick.  It is interesting that he fails to link to the first debate where I spent time affirming the ministry of Mr. Slick and telling him how he had helped me in a particular situation with a Universalist who was influencing a friend of mine.   He also fails to state that Matt Slick was less than kind, choosing to treat me with disrespect as a heretic and as a hostile opposer even though I stated that I was not opposed to him personally.  I strongly believe that these secondary issues of faith should not divide us as brothers and sisters in Christ.  The second debate which he does link to has Matt Slick calling me a heretic and refusing to allow me to finish the discussion on 1 Timothy 2:15.   Later Slick said he would allow me to come back on the show if I kept my answers to no longer than 90 seconds.   I agreed but he promptly removed the offer after I agreed to his conditions.  Those who are unbiased may want to listen to both audio files.  Even though it was my very first time on radio and even though I was sure that I would be dealing with a very hostile radio host who would be trying to twist my every word (the reason why I appeared quite cautious in my answers) and even though Slick had promised he would be kind but early on in the first debate had already lost his cool with me yelling at me, I chose not to respond to him in anger or contempt but I chose to keep a respectful attitude.  If a respectful attitude is “exasperation”, then I am certainly guilty of that.   Mr. Slick was not able to force me into a compromising position and he has since the time of the debates refused to engage in a written type of debate.  I am not surprised.

Let us consider two views on the meaning of the anarthrous noun yuvaiki, “a woman”: the patriarchalist view that ??????? is an indefinite noun referring to any woman, and Cheryl Schatz’s view that yuvaiki refers to a particular woman in the Ephesian church. In the context of the immediately preceding verses, Paul gives instructions for men and women using the plural forms. Since context determines the meaning of a word, we begin with a plausible reason to favor the view that ‘a woman’ refers to any of the women whom Paul is addressing, rather than, cryptically, to just one particular woman. Rev. Lane Keister explains the reason for the shift to singular:

I believe that Paul has in mind already the reasons in verses 13-14, which require a singular to connect with Eve as a representative. Therefore, Paul is using a generic singular to make his point. Mounce argues that a general principle is being stated here, and that the singular is most apropos.4 I think this is borne out further by Paul’s argument in verses 13-14, which speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female.

The first problem that Neopatriarch has with the connection to Eve is that he makes both Adam and Eve as a representative of the male and female with no proof at all that Paul is using Adam and Eve in this way.  If Adam is representative of all males, then are all males “not deceived”?  This is impossible as many males have been deceived and are deceived right now believing a lie.  Is Eve representative of all females?  Are all females “deceived”?  This is also not true.  The only thing that Paul brings out about Adam and Eve is that the order that they were created was connected to the fact that one was not deceived and the other one was.  While there has been much confusion regarding what Paul’s reasoning was to connect first and second created with non-deception and deception, we can be certain of one thing - the issue of deception and non-deception has nothing to gender.  It has something to do with what the “first” had that the second had not had that kept one protected from deception and the other vulnerable to deception.  It is impossible for deception to be a generic characteristic of gender.  So I ask, what proof does Neopatriarch offer that Paul is making a generic statement about all males and all females?  He makes a claim through Mounce that there is a general principle being stated but he gives no data to back up such a statement.  This is very poorly done and does nothing to refute my exegesis that “a woman” is a particular woman who was involved with false doctrine.

Next Neopatriarch argues that the “for” at the beginning of verse 13 should be taken in the causal sense so that Paul is giving a reason for his prohibition.  Since this is exactly what I argue, it appears that Neopatriarch fails to understand my arguments.  He then goes on to ask:

Also, how does the fact Adam was created first illustrate the claim that only one particular woman is not to teach false doctrine?

Apparently Neopatriarch has not familiarized himself with my argument and instead of trying to refute my exegesis, he asks questions as if he has never seen the argument.  For one who is saying that he has “refuted” me, I am quite surprised that has missed my entire section on Genesis and Paul’s reference back to the creation account in Genesis that shows the first one created had experience with the Creator that the second one who was created lacked.  It was this lack of sound doctrine on the person of God caused Eve to be deceived on the very character of God.  I would recommend that Neopatriarch first read one of my articles on the connection between Genesis and 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.   My recent article is here.   Neopatriarch goes on to state his presumption:

Therefore, we should understand verses 13-14 as reasons for Paul’s proscription in verse 12. Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.

Neopatriarch’s presumption has not been proven.  It is just that a mere presumption.  In fact his presumption makes it almost impossible to understand verse 15.  Paul’s passage that connects verses 11-15 are one unit attached together with the conjunctions of “but” “for” “and” “but”.  Also the fact that Paul creates a sharp shift from verse 10 to verse 11 by suddenly shifting from the plural to the singular when the plural would have continued the flow if Paul had meant all women must be noted as important.  While trying to make the passage about generic “woman”, his interpretation fails to account for the dramatic shift back to plural in verse 15.  Remember that all of these verses are connected together so one cannot take verse 12 and remove it from its context.  Without making sense of the entire passage, the making of Eve as a representative of all women without a single shred of evidence that she is to be considered representative of woman in the passage is entirely without merit.  Neopatriarch continues:

In his first reason, I submit that Paul is alluding to the steward-helper relationship between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:7, God created Adam and gave him the garden mandate not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). Adam was hereby entrusted with stewardship of God’s word and consequently of moral life in the garden.

Neopatriarch makes a false statement here that Adam’s stewardship was part of his relationship with his wife.  There is not even one reference in Genesis to make this connection.  God did make Adam, as the first one created, as the guardian of the garden not the keeper of a person.

Genesis 2:15  Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

The Hebrew word for “keep” means to guard or watch:

guard, watch, i.e., limit access and movement of persons or objects in and out of an area, implying protection to or from the object being guarded (Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew)

Note that God did not tell Adam to “guard” Eve.  He told him to guard the garden.  It was Adam’s responsibility as the first one created to guard what God made.  It was Adam alone who was there during the time that God was still creating and proving to Adam that He alone was the unique Creator.   Adam’s time of creation gave him the edge over his wife who had not had seen the Creator create.  When the serpent told the first lie, Adam should have booted him out while the serpent still had the legs to run.  God did not make Adam a steward over Eve and the statement that Adam’s stewardship was part of his relationship with Eve is unfounded.  Neopatriarch also fails to note that Eve was given equal stewardship of God’s creation of the world including the plants and animals.  This is a very unfortunate omission that Neopatriarch has failed to state that Eve is an equal ruler of the earth.  He also states that Adam was given stewardship of God’s word, however he gives no scripture that that shows Adam alone was given the prohibition in the garden while Genesis 1:28, 29 show that God spoke to both of them about what they could eat and the words of God in His permission also indirectly reveal the prohibition.  There is not a single verse in the scriptures that says that Adam alone was given the stewardship of God’s word.

Eve was not around when God gave Adam the garden mandate, but apparently he taught it to her because she repeated it, albeit not exactly, to the serpent (3:2-3).

Notice that Neopatriarch says “apparently” Adam taught her the garden “mandate” but he has no proof of such a thing.  It is not a fact in scripture.  It is only “apparent” to him.  Eve herself testifies that “God said…”  Neopatriarch makes a huge error when he writes:

Eve, being created after Adam, was supposed to help him in his stewardship responsibilities. Consider an illustration of this idea: A father tells his first son to remove a boulder from the yard, but, seeing that his first son is unable to do it by himself, he sends his second son out to help. It is understood that the first son is still in charge of the boulder removing project and that the second son receives instruction from and is subordinate to the first. The second son does not take over the project. What this means for Paul’s proscription is that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties that belong specifically to the office of the steward of God’s word. Only other men are to be in the position of teaching and exercising authority over men.

In contrast God’s word shows that God did not give the stewardship to Adam alone.  God gave the mandate to “them” - the man and the woman.

Genesis 1:28  God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Neopatriarch has also jumped to an unwarranted conclusion by Paul’s reference to the deception in the garden.  He now adds things that the scripture does not by saying that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties.  Paul does not say that women cannot teach or that women cannot lead.  If this was the case then women could not teach or lead other women or children either.  They would have no leadership permission at all.  Period.  Once again Neopatriarch goes off track by adding to the word of God and substituting “women” for the singular “woman”.  He also creates nonexistent sole “steward of God’s word” by reading into Genesis and from there he takes a flying leap by transferring that conclusion into the teaching of God’s word today.  Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles ever said that women were not to handle the word of God and that the handling of God’s word was for men alone.  In fact this is the exact position of the Jewish oral law who forbade women from even physically touching the word of God.  This is the tradition of man, not the command of God. Jesus berated the Pharisees for their tenacious holding to their own tradition.

Mark 7:9  He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Paul himself showed that all of us are freed to handle the word of God and teach it for the common good as he allowed everyone to prophesy, but there are many even today who are “experts” at setting this command of God aside in order to keep their tradition that makes men alone the “stewards of God’s word”.  It also makes no sense at all if women are not to be “stewards of God’s word” that it wouldn’t be with just one group of people (men) but that not being “stewards of God’s word” would be about who women are not about who they teach.  No one yet has been able to explain to me why Paul would forbid women from teaching God’s word to only men when according to this interpretation, men would be the ones who would be capable of correcting women’s errors.  Yet we allow these same women to teach other women and children.  Wouldn’t it be far safer to let women teach in the presence of men instead of just in the presence of the easily deceived women and children?

Neopatriarch goes on:

In his second reason, we see the consequences of reversing the steward-helper relationship. The first part of verse 14 says, “Adam was not deceived.” He was not deceived by the serpent. Instead, he listened to wife, and God faulted him for it (Genesis 3:17). The implication is that Adam should not have listened to his wife. Why? I think the best explanation is because she was not the proper steward of the garden mandate. She did not have the authority to instruct him.

While Neopatriarch has not established that the scripture teaches that stewardship is over the wife instead of over the garden, he then tries to reverse this by stating that she took the stewardship of the garden mandate and instructed him.  Huh?  Where does it say that Eve “instructed” Adam?  All the scripture says is that she gave the fruit to Adam who was with her.  There is no verse or even a portion of a verse that says that Eve “instructed” Adam.  Neopatriarch is reading into the scriptures something that is completely missing.  He also now adds into the mix an “authority” implying that Adam had an “authority” to instruct Eve.  Where is this “authority” listed?  It isn’t there.  Adam and Eve were given authority over the earth and over the animals but neither one was given authority over the other one.  I challenge Neopatriarch to prove his bold statement.  Give the scripture where Adam is given authority over Eve.

The second part of verse 14 says, “[T]he woman was deceived and has become a transgressor.” Andreas Köstenberger explains the meaning of this:

Eve, Paul implies, was not kept safe at the Fall; she was deceived. Why? Because she left her proper domain under her husband’s care. What happened as a result? She became an easy prey for Satan. How can women under Timothy’s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake? By “childbearing,” that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul’s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.

Neopatriarch falters here by quoting Andreas Köstenberger who is out on a limb with his interpretation.  I have personally written to Andreas about his errors.  He was not able to answer my questions although I did find him to be a very cordial man.  The first thing that is wrong is the statement that “she left her proper domain under her husband’s care”.  The fact is that God never placed Eve “under the domain” of her husband.  She had equal domain of the earth with her husband.  He was given no domain over her.  However we do see that Adam was given the responsibility to guard the garden.  Eve was left vulnerable to the deception of the serpent not because she left any domain that she was given, but because Adam failed to exercise his command by God to guard the garden.  Adam left the domain given to him by God as guardian.  It was Adam who moved away from God’s command in allowing the serpent to lie to his wife.  God held Adam especially to blame for his act of  abandoning  his post as guardian.  Adam is thus called a traitor in Hosea 6:7 in his teacherous action.  Eve did not become easy prey for Satan by abandoning any post that God gave her.  Instead she became prey because Adam abandoned his post.  Next Andreas has ignored the proper grammar of “childbearing” by making making application as if it was a verb instead of its inspired grammar as a noun and making it a “calling” for all women when God hasn’t called all women to motherhood.  Many godly women are not able to have children and many of them serve God faithfully without a home or family.  The “lesson” learned from the Fall is not that the woman left her post, but that the one who has full knowledge of the truth is responsible to speak forth that knowledge so that others will not be deceived.  Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve is a warning that the same thing that happened in the garden was happening in Ephesus.  The one who knew the truth was ramining silent and the one who was deceived was allowed to remain in her deception.  Paul was putting a stop to this situation and encouraging Timothy to make a difference in the life of this woman when even her husband was doing nothing about her deception.

Eve was tricked by the serpent. The consequence was that she became a transgressor. The identity of womankind with Eve is expressed by Paul’s switch to “the woman” and the perfect tense “has come into transgression.” So what is predicated of Eve is predicated of womankind, through the typology. That is, any woman who is typologically represented by Eve has become a transgressor through deception and continues in the state of transgression.

Paul’s switch to the perfect tense proves that Paul is talking about someone who was alive at the time of his writing.  Eve could not still be in the transgression since she was no longer alive at the time of Paul’s writing.  All women are not in the transgression brought about by deception.  It is impossible for this specific grammar to refer either to Eve or to all women.  The only way that this specific grammar makes sense is for it to refer to a specific woman who Paul stopped from teaching because of her deception.  Neopatriarch continues:

In verse 15, Paul shifts to speaking of any Christian woman who is typologically represented by ‘the woman’. John F. MacArthur says (regarding the future tense):

In verse 14 we read of woman being in sin. In contrast verse 15 speaks of woman being saved through childbearing. The salvation spoken of here is not salvation from sin. It cannot refer to Eve since the future tense is used (”she shall be saved”). Furthermore the use of the plural pronoun “they” indicates that more than one woman is in view. Some think this verse refers to Mary’s being saved by bearing Christ, but that is foreign to the context. The use of the plural pronoun clearly indicates that all women are in view here.

While John MacArthur is correct when he states that verse 15 cannot be referencing Eve, “the woman” from verse 14 cannot be referencing Eve either.  It also cannot be referencing every woman as I showed above.  The problem for patriarchists regarding the “she” and “they” from verse 15 is not answered from John MacArthur’s quote since he doesn’t even state who the “she” is.  It is improper grammar for “she” to be called “they” so “she” must not be equal to “they”.  Once again we have Paul’s specific grammar setting the stage and the arguments of the patriarchists falls flat by failing to have a noun to refer “she” back to especially  since John MacArthur makes it clear that “she” is not Eve.  Since “she” is not Eve and “she” cannot be the same as “they”, who is the “she”?  There is no other single woman that can be referenced back to other than “the woman” from verse 14  and “a woman” from verses 11 & 12.  This shows that Paul is not stopping all women from teaching or that all women are deceived, but one woman is in mind who has fallen into error and her husband’s silence is akin to the silence of Adam and just as in Adam’s sinned with his silence, so too will devastation occur in the Ephesian woman’s case if a stand for truth is not taken.

Now we come to the crux of Schatz’s argument. Essentially, I believe her argument is this: In verse 15, either “she” refers to the particular woman and “they” refers to the woman and her husband, or “she” and “they” have the same antecedent. But “she” and “they” cannot have the same antecedent because the antecedent cannot be both singular and plural. Pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. Therefore, “she” must refer to the particular woman Paul is correcting, and “they” refers to the woman and her husband.

There are a couple of problems here.

First, Schatz’s dilemma is false. The chiastic structure of verses 8-15 reveals the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:

A (9-10) Christian “women” (plural)
B (11-12) “a woman” (singular indefinite noun) –it means any Christian woman.
C (13) “Eve” (generic / representative woman)
C’ (14) “the woman” (generic / representative woman)
B’ (15a) “she” has the antecedent “a woman”
A’ (15b) “they” has the antecedent “women,” Christian women in context

Neopatriarch has failed to prove that:

1.  Eve is used as the generic/representative of woman (i.e. are all women deceived?)

2.  That “the woman” is a generic/representative of woman (i.e. are all women in transgression after being deceived?)

3.  That “she” can refer to a generic women or that “they” can be equal to “she”.  This is improper grammar.

4.  That the closest “they” should be “women” spoken of in verse 10.  He has bypassed and ignored the closest logical “they” as being the couple from verses 11 & 12.

Women are the topic of both “she” and “they,” but, grammatically, they have different antecedents. The pronoun “she” refers to “a woman”, and the pronoun “they” refers back to “women.” In other words, “she” refers to any woman, and “they” refers to every woman. Hence, “she” is not a particular woman, but any woman who is represented by the woman Eve.

This is not only unprecedented in scripture (no “she” is ever called the plural “they”) but it is illogical.  How can “she” (any woman) be saved…if “they” (all women) remain in faith….???  Not only has Neopatriarch completely failed to prove his case that Eve is to be taken as a generic representative for women but he has failed to show how a woman’s salvation depends on what all women do?  Please explain Mr. Neopatriarch how this is possible?  Also please explain how the salvation of a man (represented by Adam) would be dependent on what all men do?  It just doesn’t work.  This explanation is nonsense in this passage.  It makes perfect sense for Paul to show that the salvation of the particular woman who has been deceived will be dependent on what both of them (husband who has been silent and wife who has been in deception) do.  If the husband will lead her into truth and walk with her instead of being silent, she will find salvation that came through the offspring of the very first deceived woman (Jesus the Messiah promised back in the book of Genesis. ) Jesus is the one who rights all the wrongs and brings judgment to the one who deceived the very first woman.  It was to be her seed alone that would defeat the original deceiver.  This is what makes sense.  A generic Eve and all women having to do things that will save those who Eve represents is nothing but gobblygook theology.  It not only doesn’t make sense, but it makes Paul out to be confused and nonsensical. )

Second, Schatz’s view leads her to the untenable conclusion that a husband and wife are in view. But this conclusion has been answered by Michael R. Riley in his paper “The Proper Translation of Aner and Gune in the New Testament.”

In conclusion, Schatz’s view has several problems. Among them:

1. Schatz violates a basic principle of hermeneutics by making an interpretive key out of what many interpreters have recognized is an unclear verse (15). The clear verses should interpret the unclear.
2. Her conclusion that “she” refers to a particular woman and “they” refers to the woman and her husband follows from a false dilemma.
3. Her argument fails to take proper account of the context. Specifically, the verses that precede verses 11-12 where Paul is giving instructions for men and women (plural).
4. Her explanation of the summary citation lacks the explanatory power of the patriarchalist interpretation, especially with respect to verse 13.
5. Her position leads her into an untenable conclusion that a wife and her husband are meant. Riley demonstrates that the grammatical and contextual clues necessary to establish this conclusion are absent.

I do not say that Paul is talking about every husband and wife.  My conclusion is that Paul is speaking about one particular woman and one particular man.  The fact that the grammar is so specific that there is no other logical conclusion, supports my conclusion and not Neopatriarch’s.

Neopatriarch’s list of the “problems” of my view are no problems at all:

1.  The “interpretative key” is the entire passage without contradiction and using the inspired words and the inspired grammar.  The fact that “many interpreters” have recognized that verse 15 is an unclear verse should be a red flag that they cannot then turn around and say that verse 12 is clear.  1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one package.  It is one sentence and it is a logical and complete thought.  The “key” is to be consistent with the entire passage and the correct understanding will make it work without error.  I have done that and Neopatriarch has failed in his bid to refute my exegesis.

2.  Neopatriarch has failed to prove that “she” referring to a particular woman (from “the woman” in verse 14 and referring back to “woman” in verses 11 & 12) and “they” as referring to “man” in verses 11 & 12 is a false dilemma.  This is a classic overstating of his case which he has not proven at all.

3.  It is amazing that I am being charged with failing to take proper account of the context, when Neopatriarch wants to dismiss verse 15 as unclear.  He is also failing to account for the determined and deliberate change of grammar that Paul pens in verse 11.  The grammar shift is not a mistake and the grammar shift back to the plural in verse 15 is not a grammatical error either.  Neopatriarch has failed to prove that “she” and “they” can be referring to generic woman and when we take his explanation and read the verse with his explanation it is completely illogical and makes the passage unclear and confusing.

4.  My reference to Paul’s citation back to Genesis is certainly without the patriarchalist interpretation because the patriarchalist interpretation is unproven in Genesis.  I challenge Neopatriarch to prove his points in Genesis without reading into the text what is not there.  This is faulty exegesis and is properly called eisegesis  (a reading into the text that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.)

5.  Riley has not demonstrated that my exegesis is wrong regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  This is once again Neopatriarch’s overstating his case.

In conclusion, Neopatriarch has not only failed to refute my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, he has created a mass of contradiction, reading into the text and a presenting of his patriarchal tradition that contradicts the word of God.  He is welcome to keep trying.  I look forward to a “real” refutation if there is such a thing.  I have been waiting since 2006 since the time my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” came out.  Neopatriarch’s “refuation” is so full of holes,  one could drive a Mack truck through it.

The moral of the story is that we must not disregard the inspired context, grammar or the word usage when we interpret scripture.  When one reads into the text without regard for what God has written, that person will fall back on human tradition every time.  We need to be faithful watchmen who stand faithful to God’s inspired word and who will not let the enemy steal in and distort God’s word.  Let’s also reach out to those who have been deceived by the man-made tradition that God does not give his Word into the hands of a woman.

Send article as PDF to

While this blog is mostly always about the issue of women in ministry, today I digress so that I can pass on some of the cute sayings of my four year old grandson Isaac.  Above is Isaac and his mom Misty (my daughter).  From Misty’s “Funny things my kids have said to me” file:

1.  Just this morning Isaac called out to me from the bathroom…”MOOOMMY!  YOU GAVE ME TOO MUCH CARROTS!!!”

2.  Isaac spent a lot of time yesterday “baking” floam cookies for the company we were having later that evening.  (Floam is like playdoh but it doesn’t dry out).  While he was baking he says, “Mom?  God is giving me PASSION to do this!!!”  (Isaac takes after his Grandma in the passion department!)

3.  “You know our bones do what we do!  When we walk, they walk!” - Isaac.

4.  While eating macaroni at lunch…”I didn’t even bite the noodle!  It went SURFING down my neck!!”

5.  “What does that say, mom?”  “Total.”  “Oooohhh.  That’s like “turtle” in Spanish, right?”

6.  After staring at his Grandpa for a long time and analyzing all his features, Isaac finally just said, “So…..WHOSE tummy did you come out of again?”

7.  When I tuck Isaac in at night, I always ask him what he wants me to pray for.  One night he said, “Mom, can you please pray that you wouldn’t throw all my toys in the garbage?”

8.  “Pon-a-grab-it” is a Pommegranate.

9.  Isaac was looking through our wedding photo album and said, “This book is REALLY OLD isn’t it mom?”  I rolled my eyes and said, “Yes, it’s 11 years old.”  His response…”WOW! DIRTY SKUNKS!! THAT’S OLD!!”

10.  “Mom, boys are male, girls are “email”, right?”

More Women in Ministry next post

Send article as PDF to

This is the ninth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian will be questioning Paul on 1 Corinthians 14.  Paul will be speaking to him about the Sovereignty of God and whether there are restrictions on women in the church.  Let’s listen in.  (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)

Doug: Paul, I am anxious to talk about 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 today.  This is the final passage that convinced me that you did not allow women to teach the bible to the entire congregation.  This is also one of the clearest passages there is.

Paul: I am very happy to be able to help you out with this passage.  We do need to remember the complete context of this passage so that you will know how to interpret it in line with all that I taught.  We are going to work with another box today.  Today the box will be the filter that we need to read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 through.

Doug: Why do we need a filter?

Paul: Because people easily misunderstand me.  My writings are very deep and some people think that they can skim the surface, cherry pick out an individual verse apart from its context and run with it.   That is why there is so much confusion on my writings.   Those who are unstable, are prone to distort what I taught.  Look what Peter said about my writings:

2 Peter 3:15  and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

2 Peter 3:16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

My writings must be understood in the context that they are written in.  I have provided a filter in each complex passage that will define the way the passage is to be read.  Are you ready to find the filter?

Doug: Ah…sure.  Show me what you define as a filter in this passage.

Paul: The foundation is set in 1 Corinthians 12 and the  filter is defined in verses 7, 11 and 18-25.  Let’s start by having you read verses 17 and 18 and then verse 11.

Doug: Okay.

1 Corinthians 12:17  If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

1 Corinthians  12:18  But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

1 Corinthians 12:11  But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Paul, what are we looking at here?

Paul: The first part of the filter is that God is Sovereign and He sets the members of the body wherever He wants and He gives the gifts out to whoever He wills.  So let’s mark down:

1.  God sets the members

In verse 17 I wrote that “God has placed the members…in the body, just as He desired.”  The fact is that God is the one who gifts and God is the one who places.  It is all God’s prerogative.  Do you have any problem with that?

Doug: I am with you 100% because I believe in the Sovereignty of God.

Paul: Good.  Now let’s go to the second part of the filter.  It is found in 1 Corinthians 12:21.

1  Corinthians 12:21  And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

The second part of the filter is the fact that the body to not given permission to deny their own need for each member.  So let’s mark down the second part of the filter as:

2.  Members cannot deny other members.

The next part of the filter is found in 1 Corinthians 12:22-24

1 Corinthians 12:22  On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;
1 Corinthians 12:23  and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,
1 Corinthians 12:24  whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,

Doug: What does this part of the filter mean?

Paul: It means that honor is required to be given to those who seem weaker and less honorable in our eyes.  I will give you an example of this in just a bit.

So let’s add to our list this point:

3.   Greater honor given to those who seemingly lack honor

The next point is the reason that we have need for this filter.  It is found in 1 Corinthians 12:25:

1 Corinthians 12:25  so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

The reason that we need this filter is because we are in need of equal care so that we have no schism or no division in the body.  Let’s add this last point to our list:

4.   No schism

Now let’s take a look at the filter that we have created from 1 Corinthians 12.

Doug: Well that is a pretty nice looking filter, but how does that apply to 1 Corinthians 14?

Paul: It is the filter through which we must understand all what I wrote about the church and its function.  Let’s look at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 14 to see the filter in action.   Before first lets provide a name for this filter.  The name is found in 1 Corinthians 12:7 -

1 Corinthians 12:7  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Everything that God does in body ministry is ultimately for the common good.

Paul: Does this make sense to you so far?

Doug: Yes, pretty much.

Paul: Alright then, let’s see this filter in action.

1 Corinthians 14:12  So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

How would you see this verse looking through the filter I set up?

Doug: Since your filter is for the common good of the body verse 12 aligns up with that filter since you stated that our zeal for spiritual gifts should be focused on what is for the benefit of the entire body.

Paul: Excellent.  Now let’s look at verse 16.

1 Corinthians 14:16   When you give thanks to God in spirit only, how can ordinary people (the ungifted, uneducated) taking part in the meeting say “Amen” to your prayer of thanksgiving? They have no way of knowing what you are saying.

How can we see this verse through the filter?

Doug: It seems to me that  honor is given to those who lack the gift so that they do not miss out in the worship.  We honor them by making sure they are edified by all.

Paul: That is right!  Those who are uneducated and not gifted in the area of tongues must be considered so that they are not left out.  What other part of the filter works here?

Doug: It would be #4 that there is to be no schism in the body.

Paul: Good job!  You are doing very well in applying the filter.  The use of the spiritual gifts is for the common good.  Since speaking in tongues without an interpreter would not edify those who do not understand the tongues, the focus is to be on edifying everyone not just a few.  Okay here is a verse that might be a little harder for you to see through the filter and make an application.

1 Corinthians 14:1  Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

Doug: This one seems to be against the Sovereignty of God.  It says that we all can purse the gifts especially the gift of prophesy.  Wouldn’t this make prophesy as a gift subject to those who desire it instead of what God wills?  Looks like you have a problem with this one.

Paul: No problem at all.  Verse 11 says:

1 Corinthians 12:11  But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

The Holy Spirit gives the gifts as He wills, but it is His will that everyone desires to prophesy.  We may not all be gifted the same but we all are allowed to speak and share what we do have.  So here we still have God setting the members in the body, but all are allowed to be heard.  There is no division between the haves and the have nots.  Verses 23 and 24 show that the entire church may prophesy.  What is the result of allowing all to prophesy?  Look at verse 31:

1 Corinthians 14:31  For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

Doug: It says that all can prophesy “so that” all will have the opportunity to learn and all have the opportunity to be exhorted.

Paul: Absolutely!  And which part of the filter can we see this one through?

Doug: #4 There is to be no schism or no division in the body.  All can prophesy, all can learn and all can be exhorted.

Paul: One last example for you and then we will go into the hard passage.  How do you read verses 29 and 30 together with verse 31 with the filter that I set up?

1 Corinthians 14:29  Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
1 Corinthians 14:30  If a revelation is made to another person who is seated, the first person should be silent.
1 Corinthians 14:31  For everyone can prophesy in turn, so that everyone can be instructed and everyone can be encouraged.

Here we have a person who is “first” speaking yet they are to be silent and give the floor to another one who is seated.

Doug: I am not really sure how this one fits in.

Paul: Here is a clue - the “first one” yields to another who is exercising their gift.

Doug: Okay, let me take a crack at this one.  One member even if he is the prominent one (first one) speaking is to honor the one who is sitting down and who does not have the honor of first place.  I could see that one through #3 Greater honor is given to those who lack honor. The one who has the honor of speaking first can give up their rights in order to give honor to one who is sitting amongst the body.  I can also see #2 Members cannot deny other members the use of their gifts.

Paul: I am amazed at how quickly you are catching on.  What I was speaking about in this passage is true body ministry.  Those in a place of honor will allow others to speak.  They will not deny the use of the gifts of others members so that everyone will have an opportunity to be encouraged and everyone will be ministered to.  No one will say that the gift that someone else has is not needed by them.  In fact we are told that no member of the body can say “I do not need you” to another member of the body.

Doug: I got another one.  We can also see #4 No schism or division in the body of Christ.  The body is not divided into those who are allowed to speak and those who are not allowed to speak.

Paul: You have it down pat.  Now it is time to view 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 through this filter.

1 Corinthians 14:34  The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
1 Corinthians 14:35  If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

How are these two verses seen through the filter?

Doug: You changed everything with these verses.  They don’t fit.

Paul: Tell me in what way they don’t fit.

Doug: Well in #1 you said that God is the one who sets the members in the body and God is the one who said that all can desire to prophesy but now you are saying that women are not allowed to speak.  Then you also said in #2 that members cannot deny other members that they are needed or that they can use their gifts, but you are definitely denying women from using their gifts.  Also in #3 there isn’t any honor at all given to women.  They are told that they are to learn at home and they aren’t even given an opportunity to learn let alone speak.  The last one #4 says that there isn’t to be a schism in the body, but there definitely is a division when you have ones who are allowed to speak and ones who are forbidden to speak.  Yet I have to hold fast to the Bible and understand that women are to be silent in the church since that is clearly what you said.  I can’t make it fit the filter, but it is there in black and white and I must obey.

Paul: Doesn’t it seem odd to you that everything up to this point fits through the filter except these two verse?  Doesn’t it seem odd to you that you are rejecting all the verses freeing women to minister in their gifts, in order to hold tightly to these two verse?

Doug: But I absolutely cannot reject scripture.  I must hold to all of it because rejecting these verses would make me a liberal.

Paul: Am I a liberal?

Doug: How could you be, you are the Apostle Paul.

Paul: But I rejected this two verses.

Doug: What do you mean?

Paul: Throughout 1 Corinthians I had been dealing with questions and problems brought to my attention by Chloe’s people.

1 Corinthians 1:11  For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.

In 1 Corinthians I was addressing the contentious items, quarrels and questions brought to me.  I was answering their letter.

1 Corinthians 7:1  Now concerning the things about which you wrote, …

There were questions about the married and unmarried, questions about divorce, questions about things offered to idols, questions about spiritual gifts and about the way that collections should be taken up for the church in Jerusalem.  There was also a quarrel brought to me about the position of women in the congregation.  Those who wanted to forbid women from speaking were appealing to the Jewish oral law of the Pharisees who restricted women from public speaking and who also restricted women from public learning.  In 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 I quoted exactly what was being said in this dispute and which had been brought to me in order for me to settle the dispute.

After I quoted the words of those who wanted to split the church into two groups - those who had permission to speak and those who were forbidden to speak (a dividing line drawn by gender) I really lost my cool.  I said what??!!

1 Corinthians 14:36 Did the word of God go out from you, or (what??!!) did it come to you only?

The expression that I used is not often translated in your English Bibles, and sometimes it is just translated as “or”,  but it has a strong meaning in the Greek.  It is a marker of a disjunctive particle which separates opposites which are mutually exclusive.  In this passage it is set up as a negative answer joining rhetorical or parallel questions to preceding statements (Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (188). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.)

You see these men were acting as if the word of God first went out through men alone.  But that isn’t true.  In fact the very first message of the gospel, the resurrection of Christ came through women.  God commissioned the women to give the gospel to the men.  Women were not forbidden to bring the word of God to the men instead they were picked to be the very first apostles of the resurrection.  And who is the Word of God brought to?  Only men?  I am seeing red again as I answer these Pharisees who wish to elevate men and exclude women.  What they are saying is what the oral law of the Pharisees says, but God did not bring the gospel to only the men.  The women are instructed to learn right alongside the men.  You see, brother Doug, I was disputing the claims of these egotistical men who wanted to claim that the gospel belonged only in the hands of men.  These men were dividing the church of the living God and bringing a schism into its midst.  They were trying to hold back the women of God and stop them from ministering.  They said that they did not need the women! They said that the word of God is properly only brought out to the men and from the men.   Those were ignorant, unstable and prideful men!  Now don’t get me started or I may really speak my mind!

Brother, Doug, look at the next thing I wrote:

1 Corinthians 14:37  If anyone thinks [that he] is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge what I write to you, that they are commandments of [the] Lord.

The “law” that is quoted in verse 34 is not found in the scriptures, because it is merely a private law of man.  But I countered with the things of God that are found in the scriptures.  Those who claim to be spiritual and those who claim that they are a prophet need to recognize that the things I had written throughout chapters 12 and 14 are the Lord’s commandments.  And all of the things that I wrote match the filter that I gave you.

Do you see that Doug?  Everything I wrote shows the Sovereignty of God and his plan to set the members in the body of Christ as He chooses as well as He gifts those who desire to edify the body.

1 Corinthians 14:5  Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy…

Do you see that this is for “all” not just “some”?

Everything I wrote shows that one member cannot stand as the gate keeper holding back another member from ministering to the body.  Everyone is needed and everyone should serve as they are gifted.  We are also told to honor those who are not in a position of honor.  Lift them up.  Let them speak.  Give them honor even before the vocal ones who have first place.  And lastly everything I wrote makes it clear that there is to be no division, no schism in the church.

I am going to leave you with this one last scripture.

1 Corinthians 12:28  And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

Brother Doug, it is God who has appointed all of these gifted people in the church.  If he has appointed and gifted women as teachers are you going to say that you have no need of them?  Are you going to deny that the church as a whole needs them?  Are you going to separate out the women teachers and place them in a corner to minister to each other or are you going to let the Holy Spirit have His way operating in the way that He has chosen and gifted?

Doug: I feel cut to the heart and convicted.

Paul: Go in peace and think about what I have said.  I must take my leave and I do not know if I will ever be allowed to travel down this time tunnel again.  I trust that God will reveal all things to you so that you no longer have a prejudice against your sisters in Christ.  Remember there are to be no divisions, no schisms and the members are to have equal care for each other.

(The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here.  The  second interview is here.  The third interview is here.  The fourth interview is here.  The fifth interview is here.  The sixth interview is here.  The seventh interview is here.  The eighth interview is here.)

Send article as PDF to

Julie Pennington-Russell is pastor of First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia

This is the eighth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian will be questioning Paul on his own strong hold today.  The issue will be women pastors.   Let’s listen in.  (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)

Paul: Good day brother Doug.  Are you inviting me back for another conversation or are you too offended to talk?

Doug: I am still highly offended, but I have cooled down enough that I want to talk.  You said that I had pride because of my privileged position as a man.  I am going to make you eat those words because of what you wrote in 1 Timothy 3.

Paul: Eat my words?  Well, we will see.  1 Timothy 3 is exactly where I was going to take you today to prove that you are prejudiced by your male pride.

Doug: That is impossible because of your clearly worded statement.   In 1 Timothy 3:2 it says that women are forbidden from being elders or pastors.

1 Timothy 3:2  An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:3  not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
1 Timothy 3:4  He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

Paul: Where is the word “forbidden”?

Doug: You are just being picky.  It doesn’t exactly say that women are forbidden, but your words are very, very clear that women are not qualified to be pastors or elders.

Paul: IF I was writing about the people who are disqualified for overseers, then there would have to be only one box.

Doug: Huh?  I don’t understand.  What do you mean one box?

Paul: Let me draw it out for you.

Paul: How many classes of people are in this box?

Doug: I don’t know if you can call these “classes” of people.  But I will play along with you here.  There are women, unmarried men and married men without children.

Paul: Good.  Now notice this is one box.  All are together in this one box.  IF I was giving out the classes of people who do not qualify to be overseers, then this would be the entire box of disqualified people.

Doug: Well, you can’t disqualify unmarried men or married men without children!

Paul: Why?

Doug: Because everyone knows that men are not disqualified just because of their marital situation unless they are a polygamist.  You cannot be prejudiced against an unmarried man because he could become married someday.  And you cannot disqualify a married man without children because he could be a father some day and besides some men cannot have children.  Why would you disqualify them because their reproductive organs aren’t working properly?

Paul: There you go….you are prejudiced.  It is just as I said.

Doug: What? I just told you that I am not prejudiced.  I don’t disqualify an unmarried man or a married man without children.

Paul: But you do take them out of the box.

Doug: But the men shouldn’t be in the box.

Paul: Why?

Doug: Because…because…because no one has rules against unmarried men or childless men.

Paul: Then why do you have rules about women?

Doug: Because it is clear that you are prohibiting women from being in leadership.

Paul: If it is clear, then it must also be clear that there are some men in the same box.  If you remove the men from the box, then it proves that you have a male bias.  It is a measuring stick that shows your prejudice against women.  So tell me why do you remove the men, but leave the women in the box?

Doug: Because no church has those rules.  They only have rules for women.

Paul: So you are going to test your beliefs by the practice of other prejudiced men in other churches?

Doug: You are really ticking me off!  You are trying to force me to be prejudiced and I don’t want to be prejudiced.

Paul: But you are already prejudiced.  You are being faced with that prejudice and it is uncomfortable.

Doug: I feel that I know what is right on the inside.  I know that it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor.  It just feels wrong.

Paul: We do not test things by how we feel.  We do not test what is right and wrong by our testosterone either.  We go to God’s word and test everything by the only straight edge that we have.  Since I am the one who wrote 1 Timothy 3 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, maybe it is time for you to ask me what I meant.

Doug: Okay.  I will.  What did you mean by writing 1 Timothy 3:1-7?

Paul: I’m glad that you asked.  Open your bible with me and let’s read.  The Darby Bible shows verse one in an understandable fashion:

1 Timothy 3:1 (Darby) The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.

This is a “faithful” or trustworthy saying.  What is the trustworthy saying?  That is anyone can long for, stretch out for, or desire to have the responsibility of overseeing the church.  Those that desire this work  desire a very good and useful work.  Notice that the very first qualifier is “anyone”.  If I was going to disqualify any class of people, it would have been right here.

Doug: But doesn’t it say “he” desires a good work?

Paul: There is no “he” in the Greek.  The grammar is generic in the very same way that the salvation passages say that “he” will be saved.  It doesn’t mean males.  It is the default grammar for all people.

Doug: Okay.

Paul: Then in verse two many translations miss out on a very important conjunction.  I wrote:

1 Timothy 3:2 (ALT)  Therefore, it is necessary [for] the overseer to be blameless [or, above reproach], …

I said therefore…

Doug: What is “therefore” there for?

Paul: It ties in verse one with verse two.  Since anyone may aspire to give oversight to the church therefore it is necessary that whoever longs to gives oversight must be blameless.  Do you see that the standard to attain is to be blameless?  In what way is anyone who desires to give oversight to be blameless?

Doug: They must be the husband of one wife.

Paul: How is that blameless?

Doug: They are faithful to one woman.

Paul: Okay.  That’s good.  But can a single man be blameless?

Doug: Well, sure.

Paul: Then what did I mean when I stated that the standard is blameless and then listed husband of one wife?

Doug: Well, an adulterer wouldn’t be blameless.

Paul: You got it.  But could a woman be blameless?

Doug: Not if she was an adulteress.

Paul: That’s right.  But what if she was happily married or happily single?  Can she be blameless just like a single man can be?

Doug: Well, I suppose.

Paul: Then you can see, that the condition of “blameless” is not about gender.  It is about morality.

Doug: So what did you mean?

Paul: I meant just what I said.  There is only one real condition.  The condition that allows anyone to make their desire to be an overseer happen is for them to strive to be blameless.  IF the person is married, then that person is to be faithful.   While polygamy was not banned at that time, the blameless standard for marriage was one man and one woman.  A polygamist was not considered faithful to one woman.

Doug: So blameless is the marital standard IF one is married and gender is not the standard?

Paul: That’s right.  Let’s carry on with the standards for a blameless overseer.  In verse two I give more examples:

temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Can a married woman be temperate?  Prudent?  Respectable?

Doug: Of course.

Paul: Then these are not standards for gender.  They are standards for blameless as one who oversees God’s people.  A blameless person will be self-controlled, honorable in all they do, kind and loving to strangers, and skilled at teaching so that they can discharge their duties to care for the flock.  More examples of blameless follow in verse three.

1 Timothy 3:3  not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.

The one who desires to oversee the church will not be blameless if they are addicted to wine, they must not be a bully, or lack a gentle manner, they must be peace loving people and they must be free from the love of money.  These are more things that make them blameless as an overseer.

Doug: But verse four must be about men only since they are the managers of the house.

Paul: Let’s have a look.

1 Timothy 3:4  He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

The grammar here again is the generic kind that is used in all of the salvation passages.  Are only men able to be saved?

Doug: Of course not!

Paul: Then can women be managers of the household too?

Doug: I think that belongs only to men.

Paul: Your prejudice is showing again.  Let’s look at 1 Timothy 5:14 to see that women are also managers or rulers of the home.

1 Timothy 5:14 (Darby)  I will therefore that the younger marry, bear children, rule the house, give no occasion to the adversary in respect of reproach.

Doug: My version says that women are to “keep house”.

Paul: (Laughing)  You need to check the Greek on that one.   I said that women are to be managers or rulers of their own homes.  I didn’t say that their only aspiration in the home is to be cleaning women.

Doug: Alright, I’ll accept that one by your word.

Paul: Good.  I am pleased.  Now look at how I sum it all up in verse seven.

1 Timothy 3:7  And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Again the “he” is not actually a male term but the standard way of expression for any person without regard to gender.  The “blameless” is to be both inside and outside the church so that the one who desires to be an overseer will not fall into immorality or into public disgrace so that the person falls into the trap of the devil and the work of God is maligned.

Doug: So you are saying that there is nothing in this passage that makes a woman forbidden from being an overseer?

Paul: There is lots that would forbid her if she is not blameless.  But is being a woman mean that one is not blameless?

Doug: Hmmmm….I guess not.

Paul: Everything I said is in the category of morality, blameless lifestyle and it has nothing to do with gender.

Doug: But what about the children thing?  You have me curious.  Does a person have to have children to be an overseer?

Paul: No.  IF the person has children, then the children have to be managed well.  If a person cannot manage their own household, then how can they manage the house of God.  There are other ways for a single man or woman to show that they are blameless in managing the household of God.  After all I do not have children, yet I have God’s approval to manage the house of God.  Am I disqualified?

Doug: Of course not.  You are the Apostle Paul.

Paul: Then stop being prejudiced.  Get rid of your boxes and understand that this passage is about blameless living.  It isn’t about gender.  I would like to come back again to talk about 1 Corinthians 14.  Are you willing to hear me out or are you still mad at me?

Doug: I am not sure if I am still ticked or not.  I have so many questions.  Please do come back.  I want to hear more.

(The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here.  The  second interview is here.  The third interview is here.  The fourth interview is here.  The fifth interview is here.  The sixth interview is here.  The seventh interview is here. The ninth interview is here.)

Send article as PDF to

This is the seventh in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian is questioning Paul on why the man alone brought sin into the world.  Let’s listen in.  (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)

Paul: Grace and peace brother Doug.  Are you ready for a discussion on original sin?

Doug: I am very ready.  You have been speaking about women’s equality in spiritual matters, but I think you are going to have problems being consistent because of the fact that the male who was the only one who brought sin into the world.  Surely this proves that men are the only ones to lead in spiritual matters.

Paul: How do you connect spiritual privilege to males by the act of one man’s sin?

Doug: It is so clear.  Eve sinned first but God credited only the male with bringing sin into the world.  This proves the spiritual value of the male.

Paul: Hold on there Doug.  It doesn’t prove the spiritual value of the male.  It proves the spiritual value of the sin that Adam committed against God.

Doug: I don’t think so.  Who did God come to first after they ate the fruit?  This proves that the male had a higher place in God’s eyes as the federal head of the human race.  R.C. Sproul says:

This view teaches that Adam acted as a representative of the entire human race…Adam was the first human being created. He stands at the head of the human race. He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all of his future descendents. Just as a federal government has a chief spokesman who is the head of the nation, so Adam was the federal head of mankind.

I would think that if only Adam stood as the “head” of the human race and only Adam brought sin into the world even though Eve sinned first, then we can understand that God places a much higher worth on men as far as spiritual leadership goes.

Paul: Brother Doug, this is male pride, my friend.  I used to be there myself before I came to Christ.

Doug: We are talking about a real scholar of the bible here.  You aren’t saying that R.C. Sproul is wrong, are you?

Paul: Let’s test him by God’s word.   The answer to the questions will determine the validity of the argument.  Did Adam act as a representative for Eve when he made the choice to eat the fruit?  When Adam fell did Eve fall too?  Did Adam ever act as her representative after the fall?  And lastly did Adam speak to God on Eve’s behalf?

Doug: Adam didn’t act as a representative for Eve when sin happened.  But Eve sinned first.  That was my point.  Eve sinned first, yet Adam got blamed first and he alone brought sin into the world.  That doesn’t make me guilty of  male pride.  That makes me faithful to the scriptures.

Paul: No it isn’t faithful to the scriptures at all.  It is reading into the scriptures by your “male pride” glasses.

Doug: How can you dare talk to me that way?

Paul: I speak to what I know.  I was the biggest sinner and part of that sin was the pride that I had as a male and as a Jew and as a Pharisee.  We Pharisees were the very best at judging everyone else as lower than ourselves.  I understand how you think, but you do not know the scriptures in this matter, neither do you know the justice and grace of God.

Doug: Did you come here to insult me today?

Paul: No.  I came to speak into your life in an area that I know is a source of pride for you.  You aren’t going to like what I have to say today, but I promise you if you listen to me with open ears, God can prick your heart with sorrow for an area of pride that has become a stumbling block for you.

Doug: I have listened to you so far, but today you are starting to tick me off.

Paul: Give me just today and if I haven’t made my point, then you don’t need to see my face again.

Doug: (mumbling to himself and shifting his weight from one foot to another in obvious discomfort)  Okay, you have one chance to redeem yourself.  What do you have to say?

Paul: The teaching that Adam acted in a representative fashion for all of humanity is not true.  Eve is part of that humanity.  Adam didn’t act as a representative for Eve.  Adam didn’t taint her with his sin.  Did God call Adam to account for Eve’s sin?

Doug: No, not at all.  God approached both Adam and Eve and each one was called to account for what they did.  But Adam must have been special because sin came into the world only through him.  You are the one who wrote that in scripture!

Paul: Brother Doug, Adam was not special.  Adam’s sin was special.

Doug: How could Adam’s sin have been any different than Eve’s sin?  They both ate the fruit and they both broke God’s commandment.

Paul: It is time that we have a good look at the scriptures.  Let’s look at what I wrote about Adam and Eve and also what God had to say about Adam’s sin.  First of all let’s note that sin did indeed come through one man just as I wrote in Romans:

Romans 5:12  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

When I wrote the book of Romans, I compared the first Adam who brought sin into the world and the last Adam who was Jesus Christ and who as the Mesasiah brought freedom from sin.  I also made note that the sin of Adam was not like the sin of many others.

Romans 5:14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Yet Adam’s sin was like the sin of some.  Those who dealt treacherously against God were likened to Adam.

Hosea 6:7  But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

God calls Adam’s sin a treacherous act.  The Hebrew word means treacherous, unfaithful, deceitful.  It isn’t the fact that Adam was male that caused God to call his act treacherous.  It is what Adam did.

Doug: I really don’t see any difference between Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin.  She wasn’t innocent in the fall.

Paul: Well, let us look at the scripture to see how God sees Eve’s sin as different from Adam’s sin.  There are only two scriptures in the New Testament that refer to Eve and I wrote them both.

2 Corinthians 11:3  But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

The only two references to Eve are those that discuss deception.  Do you see that Eve was the recipient of deception?  Do you see that Eve was led astray from a simple and pure devotion to God?

Doug: Okay, I can grant that Eve was deceived, but I don’t see how deception is an excuse for sin.

Paul: It isn’t an excuse for sin, but it does show a difference in the heart attitude.  God is the one who looks on the heart.  It also provided an opportunity for God to step in and rescue.  It is a God-ordained opportunity to give grace and mercy instead of condemnation.

Let me tell you my story.  You see, brother Doug, I was working hard for God before I came to Christ.  At least that is how I saw myself.  No one came close to the works that I did for God.  I was a Pharisee of Pharisees and I was doing everything right and “by the book”.  I had a passion for God that was unmatched.  In my passion I was on a mission to destroy all of God’s enemies especially those who were betraying God by following this man named Jesus.  I fancied myself just like David who had a hatred for God’s enemies.  David said:

Psalm 139:21  Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
Psalm 139:22  I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.

It wasn’t a pretty picture now that I look back on my actions.  Look at what the book of Acts says about me as the persecutor of the church:

Acts 8:3  But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.

Acts 9:1  Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,
Acts 9:2  and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

I attacked the church believing that what I was doing was sanctioned by God and it was the right thing to do.  I believed I was being faithful to Almighty God, the one I served.  Nobody could stand in my way…but Jesus did.  He turned my world upside down.

On that road to Damascus I met Him and my pride in my own self-righteousness was exposed.  I came face to face with the realization that He was everything that I denied He was and because I came against His own people, the sheep of His pasture, He was the ultimate one that I was persecuting.

Acts 9:3  As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
Acts 9:4  and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
Acts 9:5  And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,

I was a broken man that day.  I could not believe that I had been so blind.  I came to faith in Christ that day understanding that the death Jesus experienced as a man was for me and my sin.  When He forgave me, He changed my heart so that I no longer saw myself as a self-appointed watchman set up to defend God with my murderous actions.  Instead I saw that I had been actually acting as a roadblock to God.

There I was on the road to Damascus, my mind filled with religious vengeance for Christians who I saw as God’s enemies and I was being exposed as a roadblock to God’s work!  It broke my pride and it softened my heart.  No longer did I hate the church.  God in His wonderful grace and mercy set me up as the foremost apologist to the church and He explained to me why I found mercy.

1 Timothy 1:12  I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
1 Timothy 1:13  even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

I used the word “because” as it is a marker of causality.  I received mercy because God was able to step into my insolent life as an aggressor against God, for the reason that I did my actions against God ignorantly and in unbelief.  I did what I did against the church because I was deceived and I believed that what I was doing was a righteous and holy thing.

When I came to understand how fully I had been deceived, I received a heart of love for those who are also in the place of deception just like I was.  Eve was like me in a lot of ways.  She thought she knew all about God but she became completely deceived about God’s character and what her rights were.  When she believed the lies that the serpent told her, she fell deeply into deception because of his craftiness.  It was a  treacherous act that the serpent did by deceiving Eve.  And Eve wasn’t just a little deceived.  She was fully deceived and in that state of deception she believed that she was doing what was right in offering her new-found truth to her husband.  She gave of the fruit to him believing that she was helping him.

God is the one who looks at the heart and He alone decides who He will give mercy to.  When Eve understood that she had been duped into eating the fruit, her eyes were opened.  And when she confessed her sin to God, God gave her mercy and He brought grace through her.

Doug: What do you mean?  How did God bring grace through Eve?

Paul: God gave the Messiah to mankind as an antidote for our sin. God also used the treacherous act against the first woman as an entrance to provide mercy for all of us.  God brought the Savior through the very first deceived person.  God brought grace through Eve alone.  It was only her seed that would bring the Messiah.  And it was only Adam who brought the curse into the world.  Do you believe that God was unfair to differentiate between sin committed while blinded with deception and sin committed with full knowledge of the truth and with no blinding by deception?

Doug: But didn’t both of them receive the sentence of death?

Paul: God said that if they ate the fruit they would die.  The result of eating the fruit brought death.  However the punishment beyond death was different.  Adam’s act of treachery brought a curse on the earth. The serpent’s deception caused the animals to be cursed and the man’s treachery caused the earth to be cursed.  God said ‘because you did this, this result will occur’.  But God did not bring an additional punishment from the woman’s sin.  God did not identify a treachery on her part.

Doug: So what?  So the woman sinned after she was deceived.  This appears to be why you said that only men are to have the spiritual lead.  Women are easily deceived.

Paul: There you go again with your male pride.  It is not true that women are more easily deceived in spiritual matters.  In fact most false teachers are men and most of these teachers have been deceived by others.   But let’s not get off topic.  Let’s finish the issue of accountability.  Is it fair for God to put a curse onto the earth because of Adam’s treachery?

Doug: That doesn’t appear fair to me at all.

Paul: Remember that God created the animals from the ground and he created the garden of Eden out of the ground too.  This special education should have made Adam a strong defender of God when the serpent came into the garden to deceive the woman and lie about God.   Because of man’s deliberate treacherous act by staying silent when God’s woman was being deceived, God cursed the ground that should have been the best reason for Adam to fulfill his role as protector of the garden.  Adam failed God and his failure caused God’s woman to remain in deception until she fell.

Is it fair for God to bring grace through the woman and then take back that grace and forbid all women after her from teaching?

Doug: God didn’t forbid all women from teaching women.  He only forbid them from teaching men.

Paul: If this was true then God made a mistake.  God should have allowed women to teach only men.  If men are the designated spiritual leaders, and if all women are easily deceived, then their teaching gifts would only be safe by teaching men who by their spiritual privileged position would be able to correct her errors.  It then would make sense that other women and children should not be taught be women since they too are easily deceived.  In this view women could rightfully teach only men.  But this is not what I taught and I have shown you what I taught in its complete context by showing you the inspired words and the inspired grammar.  Now what are you going to do about it?

When you stop women from using their gifts for the benefit of the body of Jesus, you are operating in the natural and not in God’s way.  When you stand in the way of women using their gifts for the benefit of men you are persecuting Jesus.

Doug: You are really ticking me off!  You are making me responsible for a woman using her gift of teaching for men!

Paul: God does not hold Eve’s short time of deception against her.  Why are you holding it against all women?

Doug: This is what I was taught and it seems right to me.

Paul: I believe that God sent me here to open your eyes.  Brother Doug, you are no longer with an excuse.  What is left is your pride that you have a privileged position because of your male parts.  If you continue to accept and teach male supremacy when there is no spiritual supremacy allowing men alone to use their gifts of teaching, then you are not gathering with Jesus, you are scattering.  Think about women who teach the bible to men.  Are you trying to destroy these women as God’s enemies?  What you are really doing is persecuting Jesus who gifted and called His women.

Doug: I do not want to hear what you have to say.  Your words offend me and make me feel guilty before God.

Paul: Brother Doug, your heart is being pricked just as I knew it would.  It may take some time before you are ready to lay down your privileged position and accept your responsibility for lifting your sisters in Christ up and not hindering them and not standing in their way as a roadblock for Jesus Himself.  Think on this.  Everything else I have to say will be less hurtful than today has been.  Are you willing to think about what I have said to you?  If not I won’t be back.

_________________________________

Stay tuned as we discover whether Doug is open to hear more.  Thoughts?  Encouraging words for Doug??

(The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here.  The  second interview is here.  The third interview is here.  The fourth interview is here.  The fifth interview is here.  The sixth interview is here.)

Send article as PDF to

This is the sixth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian has been patiently waiting to question Paul on his reference to the order of creation in 1 Timothy 2:13.  Let’s listen in.  (The previous interviews are linked at the bottom of this post.)

____________________________________________________

Paul: Grace and peace brother Doug.

Doug: It has been days since you were here last.  I was worried that you might not come back.   What took you so long?

Paul: I was apprehended by a group of “Who would Jesus knock down?” thugs.  It seems that some people in the twenty-first century do not accept my authority regarding the gospel.  Remind me to tell you about it before I leave today.

Doug: It appears your journey into our time has been very eventful.

Paul: Cultures change and times change but the attempts of some to add to the gospel has not changed.  I didn’t put up with it in my time and I won’t put up with it now either.

Doug: I look forward to hearing about that story later.  Right now I am anxious to follow through your reasoning concerning why you connected the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 to the order of creation.

Paul: I was expressing the basis or the foundation for my ruling.  The importance of Adam’s first creation cannot be underestimated.  Let’s look at the verses again.

1 Tim 2:13  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Tim 2:14  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam was formed before Eve.  The emphasis I made was on the timing.

Doug: So Adam was the most important?

Paul: No, that is not what I was saying.  I did not write that the prohibition was about Adam’s importance but it was all about timing.  Follow with me through the flow of thought from verse 13 to verse 14.  There is a logical relationship between these verses.  I used a connective conjunction in Greek to draw together the additional idea of deception to the previous idea of timing.

First in time = not deceived

Next in time = deceived

Doug: Are you saying that all women are deceived because Eve was created second?

Paul: No, not at all.  I did not use the generic here as if Adam was representative of all men and Eve was representative of all women.  I was referring to an actual event in history that had an application to another deception.

Doug: Are you saying that you were not setting up a primary role for the man?

Paul: There is nothing in my words that indicate a “role” that is being established.  The connective words leads to the picture of deception.  Notice that I presented a contrast.  It was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived…  This contrast refers to the opposite state of affairs between one person from the past and the other from the ongoing problem.  I contrasted  the “not” deceived state of Adam with the continued state of the woman.

Doug: What do you mean “continued state”?

Paul: When I wrote that “the woman” was deceived I used the “active” form which means that she is in the state of deception.  And because she is deceived she is in the place of transgression.  I used the perfect tense for “transgression” to emphasize that her deception occurred in the past but it has produced a state of existence for her at the time I wrote it.  It is her “state of affairs” and it is the problem that Timothy had to deal with.

Doug: How could Eve still be deceived and in her transgression?

Paul: She can’t be.  This isn’t about Eve.  Don’t you understand?  While I mentioned Eve in verse 13, in verse 14 I go beyond Eve.  I drew the connection between the very first act of deception and the current deception.

Doug: Are you tying in Eve’s deception to all women?

Paul: No this isn’t about all women.  The grammar is specific.  It is about the “state of being” in transgression that is the result of a deception.  Not all women are deceived.  And the bible never says that women inherit transgression from Eve.  You know that not all women are deceived, don’t you Doug?

Doug: Of course I know that all women aren’t deceived.  But I don’t understand your reasoning.  Why did you bring Adam into this equation if this isn’t about men’s roles or about the weakness of all women?

Paul: Let’s go back to Genesis and you should be able to see the connection that I made.  Let me ask you a question first that should set the stage.  We can both agree that Eve was deceived by the serpent, right?

Doug: Sure.

Paul: How would Eve not have been deceived?

Doug: I suppose if Adam would have spoken up and revealed the deception then she would not have been deceived.

Paul: You got it!  God job.  Now tell me, Doug, why was Adam not deceived?

Doug: Hmmm….that question isn’t so easy to answer.

Paul: Let’s rule out some things.  Was Adam not deceived because he was better than Eve?

Doug: They were both created perfect and without sin.  Can perfection be better in one person than another?

Paul: Good question!  The only way that Adam could be better than Eve would be if she was created with a weakness.  Is that what happened?

Doug: No.

Paul: Okay, good.  Now let’s look at Genesis.  Let’s start in Genesis 2:6 that sets the stage for the creation of man.

Gen 2:6  But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Gen 2:7  Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

In Genesis 2:7 it says God “formed” man and “breathed” into his nostrils.  The Hebrew verbs for “formed” and “breathed” are prefixed sequential verbs.  This means that the actions happened one after another in order.

Doug: No problem with that.  So after the watering of the ground, then God created the man next and after he created him he breathed God’s breath into him.

Paul: Yes, that’s what happened.  Here the story line is sequential so we can know that one thing happened after the other because of the specific Hebrew grammar.  Now let’s look at verse 8.

Gen 2:8  The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

Here it says “planted” and again this is a prefixed sequential verb.  It means that after man was created, God planted a garden.  Take a look at the next phrase where it says God “placed the man whom he had formed”.  The verb “put” is another prefixed sequential verb but “had formed” is not sequential, it is a suffixed verb.

Doug: I am not that good with grammar.  Are you expecting me to understand this?

Paul: It really isn’t all that hard.  Let’s make it easy by saying a verb can be either sequential or non-sequential.  God “put” Adam into the garden after the garden was planted.  That is sequential.  It happened one event after the other.  He put the man whom he “had formed” into the garden.  “Had formed” here is not a sequential verb.  Instead this verb means that the forming had already done done.

Doug: Okay, I can go along with you there.

Paul: If God created man before he planted the garden of Eden, would Adam have seen a fully created garden when he was first created?

Doug: Well, no.  The garden would have been created after Adam was formed if we can believe the Hebrew grammar.

Paul: Good.  What day was man created on?

Doug: Day six.

Paul: And what day were plants created on?

Doug: Day three.  That is found in Genesis 1:11-13.

Gen 1:11  Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
Gen 1:12  The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13  There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Paul: Right!  Now notice that God created the seeds on day three but the plants themselves didn’t show up until day six.

Doug: How do you know that?

Paul: Because the seeds that God created in Genesis 1:11-12 were tree seeds and plant seeds and vegetation seeds that had not yet sprouted up as plants.  They were all in their original seed form only.  That is what God created on day three.  God tells us in Genesis 2:5 that these seeds that God created had not yet sprung up as plants and why they were still in the ground as seeds.

Gen 2:5  Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Doug: So the earth would have looked bare?

Paul: Yes until after the creation of man.  What did Genesis say was the sequential event that happened just before God created man?

Doug: Genesis 2:6 - the whole surface of the ground received water.

Paul: Yes and then man was created from that moist earth.  The earth was now watered but there was no visible vegetation showing as the plant seeds had just received their moisture.  Now Genesis 2:5 says that there were no shrubs and no plants yet when Adam was created even though God created them on day three.  They were still in the seed stage and since the world was barren of grown plants at this point, would there have been anything to obstruct Adam’s view when God planted the garden of Eden?  What do you think that Adam was privileged to see?

Doug: I never ever thought of it that way.  Adam would have seen the very first plants come to life and he would have seen God plant the garden of Eden.  But what would he have eaten?  Would that have left Adam without food for a long time while the garden grew?

Paul: No because the garden of Eden was a miracle that God created.  The Scriptures tell us that there was no plant in the field when Adam was created so there was nothing for Adam to eat there, but God planted a garden after Adam was created and this garden grew in a way that the other plants did not.  The other plants were created by seed and grew through the normal plant cycle, but the garden that God planted grew up right before Adam’s eyes.  God made those trees to grow so that when God placed Adam in his new home the trees were already full grown enough to have their fruit at the stage where it could be eaten.  Adam was there before the tree of life was planted and before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil became a tree full of forbidden fruit.

Doug: Wow!  That would have been an amazing sight to see creation first hand!

Paul: No other human has ever been privileged to see the creation of the plants right before his eyes.  But there was something else that was very special that Adam was given the privilege of seeing.

Doug: What was that?

Paul: Let’s take a look at Genesis 2:18-19.

Gen 2:18  Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Gen 2:19  Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

The verb “formed” in verse 19 is once again a prefixed sequential verb.  This means that the animals that God formed on day six were created after Adam was created.  They were formed out of the ground and then brought to Adam.  Both the forming and the bringing are prefixed sequential verbs so the actions were done in a sequential manner one after the other.

Doug: Are you trying to tell me that Adam saw the creation of animals too?

Paul: This is what the inspired grammar of the bible says.  We all knew this because we could read the Hebrew and knew what it said.  And Timothy was Greek so he could also read the bible from the Greek Septuagint as well.  The Greek version of the Hebrew bible shows the grammar as God “is forming” the animals.  (See the English version of the Hebrew here http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf )

Doug: You are blowing my mind!  You mean Adam would have seen God’s creative acts with both plants and animals?

Paul: Adam was there before the plants were visible on the earth.  There were animals created just before Adam was created but we also know that all the animals were also created after Adam was created.  It wasn’t until after Adam was created and God had sent water for the seeds in the field to grow plants, that animals were given the plants for their food.

Gen 1:27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:28  God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Gen 1:29  Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
Gen 1:30  and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

The food given to the animals in Genesis 1:30 is also a prefixed sequential verb.  The food given to the animals is given after Adam’s creation.

Doug: But how could God create animals at two different times both before Adam and then after Adam’s creation?  This doesn’t make any sense.

Paul: Let me ask you a question.  Did God create mankind before or after the garden of Eden was created?

Doug: Before.

Paul: Are you sure?

Doug: Well we have just seen from the Hebrew grammar that God planted the garden after Adam was formed so mankind was created before the garden.

Paul: What about Eve?

Doug: She was created after the garden was created.

Paul: Is Eve part of the original creation of mankind?

Doug: Yes.  She is the female part of mankind.

Paul: So was mankind created before or after the creation of the garden?

Doug: Okay, I see what you are getting at.  Mankind was created before AND after the creation of the garden of Eden.

Paul: So were animals created before or after Adam’s creation?

Doug: Well, if God created the male and female at separate times, then it wouldn’t be a problem for animals to be created both before and after the creation of Adam.

Paul: You got it!  It is not a contradiction for animals to be created both before and after Adam.  We just take the bible for what it says and believe it.  Now brother Doug, tell me, what education would Adam have had about the person and work of God since Adam was there before the garden was planted by God and before the complementary animals were created?

Doug: Oh boy, Adam would have seen God in action in a way that no other human being has ever seen!  Adam would have seen the Creator creating.  Adam would have realized that he was a work of the Creator’s hand and he would have known that there was no one like the Creator.  He would have seen the Creator as separate from His creation and the creation as the work of God’s hands.

Paul: Absolutely!  Adam would also have seen the Creator’s special care for him by the creation of a special spouse that was created from his very own body.  No other mate was created in this special way.  Only the woman was fit for the man and from the man in a way that no animal was created.  So when the serpent came into the garden to deceive and to tell the woman that she could be like God and that God was holding back his best from her that she could just take for herself, why wasn’t Adam deceived?

Doug: Well it is obvious.  Adam was not deceived because he saw the difference between mere creation and the Creator.  He saw the works of creation so he knew that he could not be the Creator.  He also saw God’s loving care in giving him the very best mate that was suited just for him so he knew that God wasn’t holding back His best from him.

Paul: That is absolutely right!  Adam had a unique educational opportunity that was unlike anything that the woman experienced since all of creation was finished by the time that Eve was created.  Adam was not deceived because he had sound doctrine of who God is based on his experience with the Creator and the creation.  Adam was not deceived because he was smarter than Eve or because males are created without the ability to be deceived.  Adam was not deceived because he was created first.

Doug: Now tell me how you tied that in to the deception happening in Ephesus?

Paul: The situation in Ephesus was just like the situation in the garden all over again.  Adam knew the truth but he kept silent while his wife was being deceived.  He had the truth about who God really was but he didn’t educate his wife or stop her from swallowing the lie.  His silence allowed her to become completely deceived and then he allowed a deceived woman to give him the forbidden fruit and he ate of that fruit without ever opening his mouth and speaking the truth.  The woman in Ephesus was also completely deceived and her husband was also silent.  He allowed her to practice her deception by repeating the false doctrine as she taught it to him and her teaching the error to her husband just solidified her indoctrination in the lie.  I had already told Timothy that she was to learn in quietness.

1 Tim 2:11  A woman must quietly receive instruction (learn) with entire submissiveness.

Learning in this verse is a verb that is present, active and imperative.   Learning is a command by Paul.  The learning implies a reflection on the information so that she can come to understand the truth.  She must also learn in quietness.  Quietness is a noun that means quiet circumstances and a lack of disturbance.  She cannot be teaching her error and learning the truth at the same time.

Doug: I have never seen these things in the way that you have presented them before.  I have to meditate and think my own doctrine through.  I have always believed that it is a sin for a woman to teach any man and now you are rocking my world.

Paul: We must all be willing to have our world “rocked” because truth is of utmost importance.  What is founded on a lie must be demolished because the truth is so important.

Doug: But something still doesn’t make sense to me.  If the woman is equal with the man in spiritual matters, then why was only the man credited with bringing sin into the world?

Paul: That is a great question and deserves more time for us to consider God’s word.

Doug: Okay, then let’s talk about this next time.  Before you go can you tell me who is not accepting your word about the gospel?

Paul: Do you remember that I was invited to speak at Mars Hill by the pastor called Mark Driscoll?

Doug: Yes, I remember you said you were going.  What happened?

Paul: I had to stand up and rebuke him.  He added to the gospel and reinvented a meaning for heretic.  He said:

A heretic is one who proclaims one thing and lives another way.  Any man who doesn’t sacrificially lovingly lead his wife and children, he is a heretic.  His life preaches a false gospel.  He denies Christ with his actions.  It is a very serious matter.  It is not just an alternative marital arrangement.  It is a heresy.

This is an addition to the gospel and it is not the truth.  I just about became unglued when I heard him teach that women need to be led and that this is part of the gospel.  The bible never says that a man is to “lead” his wife nor does it attach any such “leading” to the gospel.  It is a hypocrite who proclaims one thing and lives another way - not a heretic.  To state that any man who doesn’t agree with him as denying Christ is a very serious matter and I opposed him to his face.

Doug: I have listened to Mark Driscoll for many years and I really respected his strong stand on men’s roles, but I never heard him call this role as a part of the gospel before.  I am going to see if I can get a copy of that statement on video tape.  This is indeed a very serious matter to attach a personal conviction to the gospel.

Paul: Amen!  I must be going now.  I will come back again to discuss the issue of man’s responsibility for sin.

Doug: I look forward to it.

______________

(The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here.  The  second interview is here.  The third interview is here.  The fourth interview is here.  The fifth interview is here.)

Send article as PDF to

This post is the fifth one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian is itching to question Paul regarding who is referred to as “they” in 1 Timothy 2:15.  Let’s listen in.  (The previous interviews are linked at the bottom of this post.)

____________________________________________________

Paul: Greetings brother Doug.

Doug: Thanks for meeting with me once again.  It seems like I have more questions each time we meet.  I really want to hear what you have to say about 1 Timothy 2:15 and who you were referring to as “they”.  My bible says that it is women.

Paul: No, it wasn’t about women at all.  Remember I told you that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a complete thought because of the way that I joined each verse together.  When I wrote about “they” in verse 15, the ones I was referring to will be found in that same connected passage.  My writing was not meant to confuse anyone.  Timothy knew exactly what I was talking about since the letter was written to him and for his benefit.  You will not know all the details that Timothy knew, but you can get enough information from the passage to know the action I required from Timothy and the reason for this action and the grammar will tell you who the action was intended for.  The Holy Spirit inspired me to carefully build an argument that would stand the test of time for those who are willing to meticulously follow my grammar.  Remember that it sometimes take hard work to understand scripture just as I wrote in 2 Timothy 2:15.

2 Timothy 2:15  Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 was written in such a way that a false understanding of the text would contradict the grammar in one way or another.  I could never have done that on my own.  I give all the glory to the Holy Spirit for His inspiration.

Doug: I really thought this passage was clear in my position as a complementarian.  However 1 Timothy 2:15 always did confuse me and I didn’t quite feel settled on any of the interpretations that I heard about this passage especially dealing with childbearing and women.  I could never understand why you even brought up the subject of children since not all women have the ability to become mothers and what has that got to do with the prohibition anyway?

Paul: Some of the confusion that you experienced is because many of the translators placed their interpretation into the text instead of translating the text as it was written.  It appears that they didn’t know what I was talking about so they worked with the grammar to “correct” me.  That really wasn’t necessary.  The Holy Spirit doesn’t make grammar errors.   I had an opportunity to look through some of the popular translations before I came here today and while I see several bible versions got verse 15 right, many did not.

In the Contemporary English Version the translators wrote “women” and “they”, completely ignoring the singular grammar.  That will never do if one wants to understand this passage.  The Good News Bible interprets the verse as “a woman” and “she”, completely ignoring the plural grammar!  The New American Standard Bible interprets it as “women” and “they”, although they do put “women” in italics showing that the first plural is not in the original, but they completely ignore the singular grammar leaving it out as if there is only one reference to people in the verse.  That is not accurate and will make the passage harder to understand.   I also looked through the King James Version and this version has both the singular “she” and the plural “they” but they left out the definite article before childbearing.  That throws another curve ball when trying to interpret my meticulous grammar.

There were three versions that I found that had both the singular “she”, and the plural “they” as well as the definite article “the”.   The translations that got those three points of grammar right were the Literal Translation of The Holy Bible, the Revised Version and Young’s Literal Translation.  There may be more versions that were correct, but I didn’t have time to find any more.  I paged through handfuls of bibles that were wrong on one or more of the grammar points in verse 15.  This is why I  recommend that one who wants to study to show themselves approved, should take the time to look up these difficult passages in the original language.  There are good helps out there that will guide you to all the words and each piece of grammar used.

Doug: Okay, I get that there is a need to dig deeper, but surely you can see that you weren’t clear when you went from plural to singular and then from singular back to plural.  How is anyone supposed to know what you meant?  And if “they” is not all women, how could we possibly know who “they” is?

Paul: In order to figure this one out it is helpful to go through this passage backwards starting from 1 Timothy 2:15.  I will help you.

1 Timothy 2:15  Yet she will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

We already discussed in our last conversation about who I was referring to as  “she”.  Now trace the plural “they” back to the first mention of more than one person that fits my specific grammar.  Remember I wrote that “she will be saved” as future tense and “continue in faith…” is the  action that is necessary to bring about a future salvation.  You will have to bypass Adam and Eve in verse 13 because they are both dead so neither one of them can be doing something that would affect the future salvation of a woman.  By tracing the plural grammar back you will find yourself back to verse 12 with “a woman” and “a man”.

Doug: How can “they” be two particular people?  Why is it not all of the church that is called “they”?

Paul: The grammar would cause you problems if it was the entire church.  The church would also include Timothy wouldn’t you say?

Doug: Well sure it would.

Paul: But then I would have had to use the plural “you”.  So it would have been written “She will be saved…if you….”

Doug: Okay, I see that now.  But if you were talking about one particular man and one particular woman, why did you refer to the creation account?

Paul: Because the man was a key to the problem just like Adam was a key to the very first problem situation.

Doug: You were linking Adam to the problem?

Paul: Absolutely.  I wrote that it wasn’t Adam who was deceived…but the woman being deceived…  Adam was created first and had something that the woman did not have.  He had a state of non-deception.

Doug: Is that supposed to be bad?

Paul: It isn’t bad at all for someone to not be deceived unless that one doesn’t do something with the truth that one possesses.  Is it right to have the truth and then hide it from someone who needs that truth?  Adam’s state of non-deception should have been used to protect and open the eyes of the one who was being deceived so that she would not fall into transgression.

1 Timothy 2:14  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

In the same way the man I was speaking about in my letter to Timothy was not deceived.  Do you see that I wrote in verse 15 “she will be saved…if…”?

Doug: Uh huh… okay… so…?

Paul: So, this is my point…I didn’t say that “they will be saved….if…” because she was the only one who was deceived in the relationship.  He was not deceived.  But like Adam he did nothing.  He was silent and he let her carry on in her deception and her error.  And in her deception she was trying to influence him in her strange doctrines.  Timothy did not want to get involved at first because he was afraid of offending the husband but something had to be done.  I commanded Timothy to make sure that she was in a position to learn.  Do you know how I did that?

Doug: No, how?

Paul: I put a stop to her teaching.   When someone has embraced error and consequently has fallen into deception the more they practice the error, the more they become solidified in their beliefs.  Those who go door to door with their error are solidifying their faith every time they give out their presentation at the door.   If the one who knows the truth is not going to put a stop to her teaching, it was the grace of God in action that I was able to convince Timothy to do something about another person’s wife.  She had to be stopped from teaching the error and she had to be given the chance to learn the truth.  The church is there to teach the truth so she should be embraced and brought in to learn.

Doug: But why didn’t you name her so that we could know that this was one person and not every woman?

Paul: This another sticky situation.  You will notice in my letters that I never identify deceived people who are teaching error.  I do identify the deceivers and those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing.  But those who believe the lie and are not deliberately deceiving others, I never identify those ones by name.  That would have brought long lasting shame to their name.  Think about the names Judas and Jezebel.  What comes to mind when you hear those names?

Doug: Traitor, evil, shameful.

Paul: Murderer would be another thought.   Tell me, brother Doug, do people these days like to name their children “Judas” or “Jezebel”?

Doug: No.  There is a stigma attached to those names.

Paul: And rightly so.  But how would you like a stigma attached to your name if you had repented of your sin and gone on to faith in Christ?

Doug: I wouldn’t like it at all.

Paul: If a person who had been deceived and who had been singled out by myself to stop teaching error had been named, her name would have been recorded as attached to deception and error for all of church history.  I never exposed a deceived person to such shame.  If you look at my writings you will see that the only ones that I identify by name are the ones who are deliberate deceivers.  Do you remember Alexander, Hymenaeus and Philetus?  Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already happened and they were deceiving many.  I turned Alexander and Hymenaeus over to Satan as they had rejected the faith and in their deception they were ruining the faith of many.

Doug: I do remember reading about those names.

Paul: But you don’t remember reading about the names of the ones who were the victims of deception do you?

Doug: Well, no, I don’t remember seeing any of those names.

Paul: That is because their names are not listed.  The Holy Spirit has kept their names out of the New Testament record because of grace.

Doug: Okay, I can accept that, but why list creation as the reason for the prohibition?

Paul: It wasn’t creation that was the reason.  It was the link between the first created and the state of not deceived.  It was also the link between the second one created and the fall into deception.

Doug: I still don’t get it.   It just seemed to fit so neatly with stopping all women from teaching the bible to men and now you are telling me that I had it all wrong?  Was I deceived?

Paul: Next time, my dear brother in Christ we can talk about that.  We will then have time to explore the importance of the creation account and why Adam’s first creation was so important to me and to Timothy.

Doug: Where are you off to now?

Paul: I have been invited to speak at Mars Hill by someone by the name of Mark Driscoll.  I am going to speak about other gods and I will learn a little more about your culture.

Doug: I think you are in a for big culture shock.  Promise me that no matter how shocked you are, that you will still come back here to talk with me.

Paul: You have my word.  Grace and peace, brother.

(The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here.  The  second interview is located here.  The third interview is located here.  The fourth interview is located here.)

Send article as PDF to

This post is the fourth one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian has still more questions for Paul on 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  Let’s listen in.

(The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here.  The  second interview is located here.  The third interview is located here.)

Paul: Nice to see you again brother Doug.  Are we ready to move on to another hard passage today?

Doug: Oh no!  I still have more questions on the 1 Timothy 2 passage.  I don’t quite understand what we are supposed to get from this passage if it was a local situation.

Paul: There are two important things that we should review to make sure that you clearly understand what I have been teaching you.

Doug: Okay, go ahead.

Paul: The first thing that is vital to know, and we went over this the last couple of interviews, is that it is impossible for the 1 Timothy 2 passage to be a new law the forbids women from teaching men.  The principle of two or three witnesses rules out a universal law since there is no second witness.  The second thing that you must remember is that the letter was written to Timothy and Timothy understood my letter to him.

Doug: Well that is fine to say, but don’t you think that we should be able to understand your letter too?

Paul: Yes, I do.  However there are several issues that make my letter hard for those outside of the specific situation to understand.  This is why Peter said that some of the things that I write are difficult.

2 Peter 3:15  and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2 Peter 3:16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

When we started our discussions, I told you what my letter cannot mean.  Once we can eliminate the false understanding, it is easier for you to understand what I did mean.

Doug: Why is that?

Paul: Because as soon as one tests 1 Timothy 2:12 against all other biblical laws and against the Old and New Testament principle of two or three witnesses, one must come to the conclusion that all women cannot be the subject of the prohibition in verse 12.  Besides you will notice that I didn’t say that “God doesn’t allow…”  I said “I am not allowing a woman to teach or authentein a man”.

Doug: Don’t you mean “exercise authority over”?

Paul: No, my son.  I used the exact word that Timothy would understand.  It was a rare word that fit perfectly the situation that we were dealing with.   That should have been a red flag for you.  After all, nowhere in the Bible is authentein ever given to anyone to do to another person.  Do you see that?

Doug: I didn’t know that.  I thought that men were given this authority many times in scripture.

Paul: Not at all.  The action described by the word authentein is never ever given to a Christian to act on.  No man is given permission to authentein a man or a woman and no woman is ever given permission to authentein even another woman.  The meaning of this word is not related to Christian activity and this is why it is never used in scripture other than this one time where it is used as a prohibition.

Doug: Paul please tell me what this word means.

Paul: I am not going to give the meaning to you because I want you to learn a principle that goes beyond the use of this one unique word.  Here is the principle:  When a doctrine is based upon one unique word used only one time in the Bible, and this doctrine has no second witness,  it is a doctrine built on sand.

Doug: Why are you so forceful on this issue?

Paul: It is because there are so many false doctrines that have crept into the church.  When a passage is taken outside of its context and when a doctrine is established on a passage that has no valid second witness, the church can be greatly harmed.

When I was walking over here, I stopped to talk to several people who called themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They told me that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and they gave me the reference of 1 Thessalonians 4:16

1 Thess 4:16  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God …

They said that the only archangel named in scripture is Michael so Jesus is Michael the archangel.  Now I could have have made comment to them that Jesus must also be a trumpet since “the Lord” is also coming with the trumpet of God, but I chose to ask them for a second witness, one that says that Jesus is the archangel Michael.  I gave them the same spiel about the principle of two or three witnesses.  Guess what?  They had no second witness.  I told them their doctrine was invalid.

Doug: What did they say back to you?

Paul: They said that this is what the apostle Paul meant and Paul didn’t have to repeat himself and I told them I was the Apostle Paul.  I have never seen people run so fast in all my life!  I didn’t even get a chance to tell them that I had been transported from the New Testament times to answer questions.

Doug: They probably thought you were a spirit.  You are getting into your share of trouble while you are here.

Paul: That always happens when you tell the truth to someone who doesn’t want to know the truth.  Such a shame.  Well, let’s move on to the meaning of verse 12.  Remember I told you that Timothy understood what I wrote him.  It was a situation that Timothy was very familiar with and he didn’t need me to tell the whole story for him to get it.

Doug: So if the “a woman” in verse 12 doesn’t mean all women, what does it mean?

Paul: It means a particular woman.

Doug: Why didn’t you say “the woman” instead of “a woman”?

Paul: I did within the passage itself.  Look at verse 14.

1 Timothy 2:14  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

The grammar here is the perfect tense.

The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a present state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state; the past action is a completed action.

The fall into transgression is a complete state but the transgression is a continuing state.  The woman I was communicating to Timothy about was still in this state and this was the problem.

Doug: But how does “the woman” from verse 14 connect with “a woman” from verse 12?

Paul: It is simple.  The passage is one complete thought and a noun can be definite with or without the definite word “the”. Look at this example from my own writing:

2 Corinthians 12:2  I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

Do you think  “a man” was all men or just any man at all or representative of all men, or do you understand that I was talking about a specific individual?

Doug: I know that it was a specific individual.  In fact I have always understood this to be you.  You called yourself “a man” because you were not wanting to boast about your visions.

Paul: And I am still not wanting to boast.  But do you see that an indefinite noun can be definite depending on the context?

Doug: Sure.

Paul: Let’s look back at 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in the ESV

1 Tim 2:11  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
1 Ti 2:12  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Ti 2:13  For …
1 Ti 2:14  and … but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Ti 2:15  Yet she will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In verse 11 we have a noun without the article but it is still to be considered definite because the passage is connected together.  Why is “woman” not allowed to teach?  I stated the reasons and the outcome in the next verses.  For.. and…but “the woman” was deceived (and the transgression is a continuing state) yet she will be saved…

The one who will be saved is the same one who is in a state of transgression and the same one who isn’t allowed to teach and the same one who is to be allowed and encouraged to learn.  It is impossible to remove the connection between “the woman” and the anarthrous noun in verses 11 & 12 because the entire passage is connected together with conjunctions.  The context is one woman who is deceived and who must not teach while she is in her state of deception.  But she will be saved if she is allowed and encouraged to learn and she remains in the truth that she learns and has self-control to stay away from the deception.

Doug: But John MacArthur doesn’t agree with you.  He says:

The salvation spoken of here is not salvation from sin. It cannot refer to Eve since the future tense is used (”she shall be saved”)” (see http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg54-17.htm).

Paul: Well brother John is half right.  Verses 14 & 15 cannot refer to Eve.  Eve is not continuing in transgression so verse 14 cannot be Eve.   Verse 15 also cannot be Eve since the future tense is used just as John MacArthur said.  That is all correct.  But he is wrong when he said that the salvation I spoke about is not salvation from sin.  In fact I made it very clear when I stated that she would be saved (future tense) through THE childbearing (definite article and the childbearing is a noun and not a verb).  The unique and only birth of the (definite) childbirth that brought salvation was the birth of the promised Messiah.  There is not even one reference of mine to salvation from anything else but sin in all of my epistles.  So there is a 100% agreement in my epistles when I speak about salvation that it is from sin and 1 Timothy 2:15 is not an odd ball reference removed from all of the other references.  It follows the same pattern.  Salvation by THE childbearing is the person of the Lord Jesus, the Messiah who came through the lineage of the very first deceived woman.

Doug: But here is one more thing that I want to bring up.  It is from a dear friend of mine - my friend Chris.

When ‘she’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14 it is not referring to the woman *as* Eve or *as* the woman herself but rather the woman as the representative of all women collectively.  Using the singular ‘she’ is fine grammatically because ‘the woman’ in verse 14 is singular, but it should be understood that all women are meant because, conceptually, ‘the woman’ stands for all women.  The plural ‘they’ in verse 15 refers to all women collectively.

Paul: This grammar is impossible.  While “the woman” is certainly “she” (and the same woman from verse 12 with the use of the anarthrous noun) “she” can never be the same thing as “they”.  In other words “she” cannot be “all women” while at the same time “they” is all women.  Where is the second witness for such illegal grammar as this?  Have you ever seen a second witness to this grammar error?

Doug: Well, no.

Paul: Secondly, let’s replace the “she” and “they” with this interpretation:

All women will be saved through THE childbearing if all women continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Does this make sense?

Doug: That doesn’t sound right, does it? It kind of sounds like no women can be saved unless all women continue in faith.

Paul: This is the problem.  It doesn’t make sense and a doctrine based on one passage without a second witness is harming the church.

Doug: But how can this passage harm the church?

Paul: It harms the church by creating a law that stops women from using their gifts of teaching for the benefit of the entire church.  Do you think that only women are being hurt?  Men are hurt too when they do not have the benefit of women’s gifts.  The church needs every single saint and every single gift that God has given because we are knit together in love and it is when we serve each other that the whole body grows.

Oh dear, look at the time!  I must be on my way.

Doug: Will you be back?  I have so many questions!  Wait…you were supposed to tell me what we are to get as a lesson from 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

Paul: The lesson? It is simple.  Deceived people can be helped if they are nurtured by caring Christians who are willing to teach them solid biblical teaching.  We should not just write off those who are deceived.  They can be saved if they are taught proper doctrine and if they will embrace and love the truth and have self-control to stay in that truth and not wander off after the lie.  Now brother Doug, don’t worry.  I will be back.   I am on my way to a Kingdom Hall to find myself some more Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I am going to practice finding and teaching the deceived.

Doug: Oh boy, Paul.  Just don’t tell any more of them that you are the Apostle Paul!  They frighten easy.

Part 5 of this series is located here.