What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?
Dec 2nd, 2006 by Cheryl Schatz
I was challenged to present my view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 on another blog and I thought it would be good to summarize my view on my own blog. Here is the teaching from “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” our DVD series on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, presenting the 1 Timothy 2 passage in a nutshell:
- In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)
- Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND to stop all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine - he only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3)
- Paul says that he too had been deceived and he received mercy because of his fighting against the church was because he was ignorant of the truth and he had been deceived (1 Tim 1:13, 16)
- Paul differentiates between those who were teaching false doctrines because they were ignorant and deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 7) and those who were deliberate deceivers (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)
- Paul names the deceivers (1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)
- Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding how the men and women who claim godliness should conduct themselves in the church while they are in the midst of the false teachers (1 Tim. 2:1-10)
- All Christians should be praying for the lost even those who are lost in their midst - those who are embroiled in false doctrine (1 Tim. 2:1-4)
- The Christian men in the congregation are not to handle the false teachers with argumentation that might come out even in their prayers (1 Tim. 2:8)
- The women in the congregation who lay claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:10) need to handle this false teacher situation with prayer as well (1 Tim. 2:9 “likewise” links back to prayer) and continue to produce good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and not expect that it is their appearance with elaborate dressing that will show forth the godly example, but their godly works (1 Tim. 2:8-10)
- Paul then abruptly changes from the godly men and women (plural) to the singular form of woman and man and deals with a problem of false teaching and a false teacher.
- Before Paul gives the prohibition, he gives the solution to one of the problems in the church. Paul instructs that “a woman” is to be given the opportunity to learn. This identifies the problem that she is not one of the deceivers, but one of the deceived. Paul never educates the deceivers - he names them, exposes them and shuns them. His solution to deception is education in sound doctrine and he never ever identifies the deceived.
- Paul tells Timothy that he is not allowing “a woman” to teach or authenteo “a man”. It is out of context to even consider that Paul is here stopping godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. In context the prohibition can only be the stopping of false doctrine and stopping a false teacher. (1 Tim. 2:12)
- We know this is false teaching that is being stopped because Timothy’s mandate to stop the teachers was only for false teachers. Also in the example given later of why the teaching is to be stopped, Paul ties the prohibition into the example of the first deceived woman (1 Tim. 2:14)
- Whenever gune and aner are mentioned together in scripture in any type of relationship, they are always translated as husband and wife. Verse 12 should be translated as a single wife teaching/influencing her husband.
- Paul has several times not identified people by calling them “a man” yet the context clearly identifies the “a man” as a specific person (2 Cor. 12:2, 5; 1 Cor. 5:1) 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 follows that example as two people are called “a woman” and “a man” without naming them. They are not named because the wife is one of the deceived and Paul never identifies the deceived ones by name.
- Paul identifies the reason why the first man was not deceived and why the woman was. He refers us back to Genesis to discover the reason by stating that the man was created first and was not deceived and the woman was created second was deceived (1 Tim. 2:13, 14 and Gen. 2:8, 19) See Genesis 2:8, 19 in the Apostle’s Bible which is the modern English version of the Greek Septuagint where it is quite clear the education Adam had before Eve was created.
- The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The â”she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.
- The only “she” in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is “a woman” from verse 12. “She” and “they” are given instructions regarding her salvation and it is future tense.
- 1 Tim. 2:15 gives the answer as to whether the deceived woman can receive salvation even though she has been deceived by false doctrine. She (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah born of the woman (the childbearing which is a noun and not a verb), if they (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman and her husband) continue on in their faith in God, love for the Savior, holiness, and self-control to stay away from false doctrine. This is how one deceived woman will be saved (and is a pattern for the salvation of all deceived teachers).
- Summary: Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.
For a full media production of this passage along with the other hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, see our DVD called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” available on Amazon.com or see a fuller version of 1 Timothy 1:11-15 by clicking here.
Does this exegesis make sense?
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:08 pm
She brings out some very interesting points in the previous context and I like her approach. However, item 14 about gune and aner is contradicted by one of the hot passages in this debate, 1 Corinthians 11:3. In the NASB, it is translated man and woman.
In the careful handlings of this 1 Tim passage, most commentators point out that gune can be either wife or woman. They rule out the wife option since the address of this entire passage seems to be on a gender basis and not a relational basis. Ben Witherington has just published a new commentary on the Pastorals and does a very fine job in explaining the text and showing that the most plausible answer points to a temporary ban on teaching until a time of instruction has passed.
I also think she is straining the singular a bit, but maybe not since both sides give extensive discussion to the singular in verse 15.
All in all, it is a fresh take and even in the areas of disagreement with her, I have received insight and new perspectives on this troublesome passage that helps my understand the text and argument more clearly.
Rusty Bullerman
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Thank you Rusty for your comments! Two things I would like to comment back on. In 1 Cor. 11:3 although the NASB says the man is the head of the woman, the understanding in commentaries is always that it is speaking of husband and wife. I am sure you would agree that no other man is the head of your wife and you personally are not the head of every woman you see. Yes once again husband and wife are the context of aner and gune when it is talking about the two in relationship.
Secondly about the singular “she” in verse 15, if we are going to be true to God’s word, we must pay attention to his inspired words and his inspired grammar. I really like the NASB, but their rendering of 1 Timothy 2:15 as “women will be preserved…if they” completely hides the Greek “she” and “they” in this passage. If other versions had not been faithful to the Greek change from singular to plural here, I may not have come to understand this passage as clearly as I have. To complementarians, I ask, please show me who the “she” is and who are the “they” that verse 15 refers to? I believe my exegesis not only explains clearly who “she” and “they” are but keeps the meaning in the complete context of the passage regarding deceived teachers and false doctrine.
I believe that it is completely out of context to interpret verse 12 as Paul stopping godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. With that interpretation we then have Paul questioning the salvation of women in general. The salvation of women in general is never questioned in scripture.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Great, simply great exegesis
I was wondering if I can translate your blog post to Danish and pass it around to anyone I know?
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Hi Martin,
You have my blessing to post my blog in Danish. Go for it!
December 4th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Why have you set things up on this blog so that biblical references are automatically linked to the website of ESV, a version which (as documented at the Better Bibles Blog) is fundamentally distorted (e.g. at 2 Timothy 2:2) towards a position opposite to that which you are promoting?
But at least ESV gives a reasonable rendering at 1 Timothy 1:3, whereas it is NIV (”certain men”) which is fundamentally misleading here. For the Greek word tines is clearly gender generic; the text gives no indication of whether these false teachers were male or female. But it is interesting that whereas at 2 Timothy 2:2 the ESV translators manipulated the text to rule out the possibility of women teaching the truth, they seem to have no problem with the idea of false teachers being women!
But I must say I am not convinced by point 4 above. It seems to me that the tines, “certain people” or “some”, of verse 19 are the same as those of verses 3,6. This group include two named men, but that of course does not imply that there were not also women in the group. The same misunderstanding continues in point 11: it is not true that “Paul never educates the deceivers“, for in 1:20 he takes steps that they may “learn”, using a Greek word explicitly of education and discipline; the intention is not to “shun” these people but to restore them.
But this small quibble doesn’t invalidate the main point here. The real issue is with the rather strange “a woman” and “a man”.
I don’t understand point 16. I don’t have the rather presumptuously named (and probably mis-apostrophed) “Apostle’s Bible”, but in the LXX of which it is supposed to be a translation there is nothing in Genesis 2:8,19, nor indeed anywhere between the creation of Adam and of Eve, to suggest that God taught anything to Adam which was not taught to Eve. Well, I guess Adam learned some zoology from naming the animals and birds, but that is in my Bible as well as in the supposedly apostolic version.
Actually if the subject in the first part of verse 15 is not the woman of verse 14, there is nothing to suggest that this refers to a woman rather than a man - since you don’t understand “through the childbirth” to mean that this person personally gives birth to a child. But I accept that it does most likely refer back to the woman of vv.11-12.
Yes, this exegesis does make sense. I wouldn’t claim that it is the only possible exegesis. But I think it is very reasonable to suppose, especially in the context of the negative word authentein, that didaskein “teach” in 2:12 refers to false teaching. And that in itself is enough to demonstrate that it is unsafe to rely on this passage to forbid all women from ever teaching Christian truth.
December 4th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Hello Peter,
Thanks for your comments. You asked why the biblical references are automatically linked to ESV. My son graciously gave me space on his site for my blog and he said he had found an add-on to automatically link to the bible. I asked him to remove the add-on. I am not really up on all these blog technicial things.
It certainly is helpful when Bibles render the passages that refer to men and women in a way that we can understand. 1 Tim. 1:3 is generic to show that the false teachers can be men, women or both. Your point is well taken that 2 Tim. 2:2 – the faithful ones who are able to teach – is also a gender generic passage.
I disagree with your point that the “certain people†from verses 3 and 6 are the same group as those of verse 19. Here is why I believe they are two separate groups of people.
1. The group of people in verses 3 and 6 are apparently false teachers who are in the congregation whereas the deceivers of verses 19 and 20 had already left the faith or were already removed from the congregation due to the seriousness of their teaching (saying that the resurrection had already happened).
2. The group of people in verses 3 and 6 are teaching myths, endless genealogies and speculations. They are not teaching outright heresy as are the two mentioned in verse 20. The fact that the teachings of the first group are also serious matters that could lead them away from God is certain because instead of following the faith some have “turned aside to fruitless discussion†Paul wants them to be instructed in the truth and stay away from the speculations.
3. The two deceivers mentioned in verse 20 are a part of the group mentioned in verse 19 which are again generic “some†showing that this group also could be men and women. However this group had rejected the faith: “which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.†Since they have rejected the faith, they were no longer in the congregation.
4. Paul does not advocate teaching to this second group of people who are deliberate deceivers. The fact that Paul says Hymenaeus and Alexander should be taught does not mean taught by the church. Paul handed them over to Satan so that Satan will be used to teach them not to blaspheme. “Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.†This is certainly nothing like the teaching that the church gives, but is more like being “raked over the coals†by the enemy so that their suffering may convince them to stop their deception and their error. Paul does not say that he has handed them over to the church to be taught. No, he says he handed them over to Satan to be taught. Again, I repeat that Paul wants the deceived ones to be taught and the deliberate deceivers he shuns them until they have learned how to stop their blasphemous ways. The deceivers are not to be tolerated in the church. Their learning is outside the church and once they stop their deception, they are welcome back.
Peter, you also said “I don’t understand point 16.†The main reference to point 16 is found in the “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics†book edited by Robert D. Bergen and published by the Summer Institute of Linguistics copyright 1994. Here the grammar from Genesis 2:8, 19 is analyzed and shown as “the individual verbs in 2:8 and 2:19 are intended sequentially within that account.†Their point is that the creating of the garden and the creation of the animals in chapter 2 is intended as a further act of creation after Adam was created. This is clearly shown in the Apostle’s bible link that I gave. The full quotes to the Discourse Linguistics book are given in our DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?â€
Thank you for saying that the exegesis makes sense. At this point I believe that my exegesis makes the best sense because one must have a valid explanation for who is the “she†and who are the “they†of verse 15 to make sense of the entire passage. So far I have not read nor have I heard anyone give any viable other option to the “she†and “they†of verse 15. We cannot just ignore the grammar and the words to make sense of the passage. I have taken great pains not to ignore either.
December 4th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Thank you, Cheryl. You may well be right about the two groups of false teachers. Certainly the ones in verses 3 and 6 had not gone as far as Hymenaeus and Alexander had, and so had not been put out of the congregation. But they were potential teachers. I suppose the point is that they had not yet become like H&A, but were perhaps heading in that direction and were to be stopped before the situation went so far. But surely heterodidaskein in verse 3 means something like “to teach false doctrine”, and the present infinitive here implies that they were not stop doing it, not just not to start. In verse 19, however, the group seems to have rejected conscience rather than faith, and Paul’s action in delivering two of them to Satan suggests that they had not voluntarily left the church. But I agree with you on the basic point that “Paul wants the deceived ones to be taught and the deliberate deceivers he shuns them until they have learned how to stop their blasphemous ways.”
Thanks also for the Bergen reference. This book happens to be on my bookshelf. But I will make that a separate comment simply because I must now take a break and don’t want to leave unsaved material.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Hey Peter,
You said “In verse 19, however, the group seems to have rejected conscience rather than faith, and Paul’s action in delivering two of them to Satan suggests that they had not voluntarily left the church.â€
How about we both agree? My understanding of verse 19 says that they rejected *both* their faith and their conscience. I also agree that although some left the congregation on their own accord, (1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.†In this verse it does seem that some left on their own accord) there were definitely those who had to be given the “bootâ€. I fully agree with you on that point.
I consider it a privilege to be able to dialogue with someone who has the knowledge in Hebrew to own the Robert Bergen reference book. Most of the book is way over my head, but I feel it important enough to see the primary documents for myself so I purchased the book to check out the facts. This book really helped me to see Paul’s point in taking us back to the Genesis account in order to understand why Adam was not deceived and why Eve was.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Well, I didn’t say I could understand the Bergen book, only that I have it! But I have worked on a translation of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the Greek NT, and so I do know a little Hebrew.
I now understand the issue you had with Genesis 2:8,19. In Bergen’s book Randall Buth rightly argues that NIV’s use of pluperfect tenses in these verses (”had planted… had formed” - apparently an attempt to harmonise these verses with chapter 1) is without linguistic justification. Buth writes: “What is happening here is that the creation story is purposely told from two different perspectives in chapter 1 and chapter 2″. This is equally clear in the Hebrew and the LXX Greek text, but may have been clarified in the Apostle’s Bible translation of LXX which you mentioned. So, yes, in chapter 2 there do seem to be acts of creation after the formation of the man, but before the formation of the woman who in fact seems to be the last to be created, the final crown of creation. So Adam would have witnessed this further creation and so been better educated than Eve. I still don’t see the relevance of this to the situation in 1 Timothy 2, but then maybe I need to get the DVD.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Yup, you will need to get the DVD
It’s multi-media with high quality pictures and I think that helps to get the idea across succinctly. Well it’s me teaching so I am kind of biased, but I think you will like it. I will give you an idea of what you will see in it. If one sees with their very own eyes the Creator creating animals from the dirt and you know that you yourself were created by the Creator from the dirt, would you be convinced that you could be like Him? Or would you understand that there is a vast difference between creation and the Creator? Now how about if you didn’t have the opportunity to see this with your own eyes? Would it be easier to deceive you? Could you perhaps be convinced that you were only a bite of fruit away from being just like God? Is sound doctrine (about the difference between God and his creation) something that will keep us safe from deception and did Adam have special hands on training in sound doctrine in regards to who God is? I think we can safely say YES!
If we follow Paul’s lead back to Genesis, we can see how sound doctrine can keep us all safe from being deceived. It is also sound doctrine that will straighten out the deception and the deceived teachers.
So Paul’s point – the first one created was not deceived (he had sound doctrine concerning the difference between God and creation). The second one created was deceived (she did not have the opportunity to see the difference between God and creation). The woman in verse 12 is deceived and teaching error. She needs to stop teaching and learn sound doctrine so that she too will not be deceived. Does that make sense?
December 5th, 2006 at 4:09 am
Thanks. Yes, this is starting to make sense. But I must get on with my Bible translation work - which today happens to be a check of 1 Timothy, so what I have learned from this thread may help me.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Blessings to you Peter!
December 6th, 2006 at 1:52 am
A very interesting reading. I’m not sure that I am entirely convinced, but then, when dealing with an epistle in which references are made to very specific situations of which we know next to nothing, your reconstruction of the situation does make sense.
I had always felt that in this passage, the specific prohibition was against a wife ‘talking over’ or contradicting her husband in public (during worship?). But, recognising that I do not know what, in particular, Paul was addressing - and it cannot be a general prohibition for Paul respects/values various women as fellow apostles, co-workers and so on.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:48 am
Hi Sam,
The interpretation that Paul is prohibiting a wife from “talking over†or contradicting her husband in public is an interesting one. However the problem you would have with this interpretation is three-fold.
1. It gives no explanation for the connection that Paul gives for the reason for the prohibition and that is the deception and falling into sin of the first woman. How is contradicting one’s husband in public connected to the deception of Eve and her falling into sin?
2. The restriction in verse 12 is “teaching†and “authenteo†not “talking over†or contradicting. I think you would have a difficult time connecting a public contradicting of one’s husband with the word “authenteoâ€. Titus 1:9 gives the Greek word #483 which is the normal word that means to speak against or to contradict. Since Paul had at his disposal the regular word that would describe the action of contradicting or “talking over†her husband, it would seem extremely odd to describe the prohibition of contradicting with the extremely rare word of “authenteoâ€.
3. In verse 15, the salvation of “a woman†is questioned. In what way would contradicting one’s husband result in having one’s salvation questioned?
I think my interpretation of Paul restricting a particular deceived woman from teaching or influencing her husband fits the context, fits the connection to deception in chapter one and in verse 14, and gives a very understandable answer to why the salvation of “a woman†is questioned in verse 15.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Cheryl, (or Peter if you are still checking in, my Dad is a scientist and I have been around scientists all my life who fully embrace the authority of scripture. Some I know have studied theology along with their science. To a person, they see no conflict between the earth being billions of years old and animal life originating 100s of millions of years ago. I have never heard this claim before that this passage must mean that animals were created after Adam.
I would appreciate more on the idea that animals were formed after Adam and before Eve. IMO, if so, then the creation story is not a historical account but rather a nonhistorical construction to illustrate theological truths, much like the discussion at Jesus Creed awhile back. In your estimation, does the language necessitate such a reading or is it merely a possible reading?
December 6th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Hi Michael,
You ask a great question about the creation of animals. First of all in answer to your question, the issue is not about animals ONLY being created after Adam. The Hebrew is specific in that animals were definitely created *after* Adam, but they were also created *before* Adam. This isn’t too hard to understand because just as mankind was created in two “acts†with the man created first and the woman created later after Adam had time to realize that he needed a mate, so the animals were created in two “acts†also for Adam’s benefit. The first set of animals was created before Adam and the second set was created as God formed each animal and brought the animal and its mate to Adam for naming. It only makes sense to me that the second set that God created was the mates to the ones that were created earlier. I can’t prove that one for sure, but it makes sense to me because that is how he created humans – male first and female second.
For those who can believe in the inspired scriptures and still believe that the earth is billions of years old and animals were created hundreds of millions of years ago, they must be able to rationalize away some of scripture to do that. There are several things that make that belief untenable to me. If you want, I can let you know what those things are.
The bottom line is are we going to believe what God has said (his testimony) or are we going to believe the testimony of science? The one thing that I know for sure – science has changed their dating system by billions of years just in my own lifetime. I remember in my early years of school being taught that the earth was millions of years old. I didn’t pay attention to when it exactly happened, but the earth got a lot older sometime through the years. Now we are told it is no longer millions of years old, but billions of years old. Animals now are not just millions of years old, but hundreds of millions of years. That is a significant change, but the truth hasn’t changed since truth is consistent.
I came to a crisis of faith myself in the mid 1980’s. I came face to face with something that I couldn’t make fit in the bible. It was on the resurrection. I couldn’t understand how Jesus could be dead for three days and three *nights* if he died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday morning. As I thought it through and reasoned within myself, I came to understand that I must accept the bible as God’s inspired word and accept that it was right even if I didn’t understand how it could be right. If I accepted that there were errors in God’s word and that it wasn’t completely inspired, then I could not have faith in the bible. I would have to say that it then would be hit or miss on whether it was truth or not and I couldn’t accept that. So I decided to believe God without having all the facts to convince me that it was truth. It was a definite turning point in my life. From that moment on, I have come to understand that scripture is God-breathed to the point that each word is inspired and each piece of grammar is inspired. I have seen it proved over and over again that God’s word is true even if every man is found a liar. Romans 3:4 says “By no means! Let God be found true though every human being is false and a liar, as it is written, That You may be justified and shown to be upright in what You say, and prevail when You are judged [by sinful men]. [Ps. 51:4.]â€
Since that turning point in my life, I have been privileged to have visited Israel in 1986 and that trip opened my eyes up to the Jewish understanding of some things in the resurrection passage that I had not understood before. I now understand that it is our tradition that invalidated the word of God and made it look like it was in error. Our tradition says that Jesus was crucified on Friday, but God’s word doesn’t say that. I believed God first and then had it proved to me that his word prevailed and our tradition was the one that was faulty.
In a similar way I have come to understand that God’s word about creation is not a myth neither is it in error. Jesus believed that the first man was real and not a myth because he talked about the creation of the first man and woman. It is a test of our faith. Will we believe what God has said, or will we believe what has been a changing science throughout the years? I have lived long enough to see science change and it will continue to change. But God’s word does not change.
God has also provided a great deal of proof to back up his word, so that if we are open, I believe that there is enough evidence out there to prove God’s word regarding creation. Men can be wrong and have been proven wrong time and time again, but God’s Word has not been proven wrong. I recommend anyone to check out the facts before they ever consider disregarding God’s inspired words. I highly recommend Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Read the material. Listen to what they have to say. Remember again that our traditions are subject to change and subject to correction. If one uses science as a measuring stick to measure the bible by, they are trusting in man instead of God who cannot change and who cannot lie. Measuring God and His Word with human understanding is like trying to measure accurately with a rubber band that is one time stretched and the next time relaxed. It just doesn’t work. I have never regretted the day that I chose of my own free will to believe the bible and set aside my human fallible reasoning process. For me it was a chance to glorify God – to believe Him even though I couldn’t understand. Now I reason through scripture starting with the understanding that His Word is true and every man is a liar that discards the words and grammar of scripture. This thinking process has enabled me to see things that others have missed. Why? Because I trust God’s word with my life and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that every word is there for a purpose and every piece of grammar is there for a purpose. When I key in on things that others disregard as unimportant, understanding has been given to me that others have missed. God is the one who gets the glory, because He alone is worthy because His word is truth (and every man a liar!)
December 6th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Thanks Cheryl. I can see so many avenues to go with this but all would lead far afield of your post here. I will just say that I am an old earth type and do not subscribe to the Answers in Genesis take on the Bible. I wonder if you have ever investigated Hugh Ross’ work. I would especially recommend “The Genesis Question” and “A matter of Days.” He also has an exceptional website Reasons to Believe.
A few observations. First, the early verses do not appear to be giving a chronology of events but rather describing the habitat of the Garden and pointing out God’s care in creating a place for man to live. The story notes in verse 18 that it is not good for man to be alone. I understand verse 19 not to be describing a sequence of events.
“Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, ….†NASU
This is stated to emphasize the origin of the animals and God’s provision for man, not the idea God set man down and created the animals in front of him. Remember that his day is a very long day.
Gen 2:4
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. NASU
The “day†here is clearly being used in the sense of an era not a 24 hour day for as we just saw, even if you believe in literal 24 hour days, this Chapter two story is creating the whole creation in a “day.†Thus to say God created something present tense could mean anywhere along the six day timeline before bringing them to Adam.
Furthermore, the Gen 1 passage says animals were created were created on the sixth day. God ceased creating on the seventh day. Let us assume these are twenty-four hour days. Here is what has to happen for this to work. God creates the animals. Then God creates man. Then God creates every one of thousands of animals again and brings them to the man. One stat I read estimated that if Adam had named every animal at the rate of about 1 every two seconds he might have completed his task in eight hours! Then God creates woman. Adam meets woman and we have completion.
It seems much more plausible to me that the animals have been created prior Adam and are brought to Adam over an extended time to name them. Also, I don’t know of any teaching in the history of the church that holds that animals were created after Adam or that they were formed first as one sex and then another. That doesn’t mean it can’t be so but I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Peace to you!
December 6th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Hi Michael,
I am not a young earth type per se, because I just want the truth of God’s word and whatever that is, is good with me. I have looked at Hugh Ross’ material and I have seen his debates. Unfortunately I have a problem with his view of the bible. You see it is difficult to persuade me unless you use the bible and can show me from scripture the facts. I believe God’s word is fully inspired and if God’s word says it and confirms it, that settles it for me. I am not one who is easily persuaded by extra biblical evidence unless it also is able to be confirmed by the bible. Hugh Ross’ view of the flood is especially troubling to me. Also his dating of the first man and woman to about 43,000 and 40,000 years ago respectively just doesn’t match up to the bible. He has changed the age of the first man and woman several times and that also doesn’t sit right with me. Truth doesn’t change like that. My husband and I took the book of Genesis and mapped out a time line. Just taking the age of the parent when his son was born and the age that the parent died was fascinating. It really opened up the bible to us as we saw how many generations of Adam’s children were still alive that would have known the first human parents. I don’t know where we put the chart but going by memory even during Noah’s time before the flood there were still some of the original first generations of humans. It is impossible to map out Adam and Eve using births and deaths of children to go back 40,000 years. Some old earth advocates will even go so far as to try to take them back 100,000 years as Hugh Ross’ organization admits. They even say that originally the DNA of the first woman was dated to 100,000 years and then changed to 40,000 years after they figured out DNA mutates at a faster rate than assumed. That originally made her much older than the man. There is so much that doesn’t match with scripture. I never did figure out how the man lived 3,000 years before the first woman was created when we are told in scripture how old man Adam was when he died and he wasn’t even 1,000 years old. No, I don’t think that kind of back and forth dating and assuming rates of DNA decay will ever touch the inerrancy of the bible for me. Also making the biblical flood only a local flood when scripture says the waters were higher than the mountains is just plain….well, stretching facts to suit one’s theory. It would have taken a miracle for the waters to be that high above the mountains and not have the waters flow over the earth.
Now back to topic. You said that you think the emphasis is on the origin of the animals and not that God set Adam down and created the animals in front of him. If the second set of animals was created after Adam was created, it wouldn’t matter if the creative day was a long day or not. The fact is that they were created *after* him. Why would God create animals after Adam? I see no other reason than to educate Adam regarding the difference between God and creation. The Hebrew is specific in that the creation of the garden and the second creation of animals was *not* before Adam. That is the point that we have to deal with, not how long the creative day was. The Hebrew is written as a sequence of events in chapter two and that is proven by Robert Bergen’s book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics†and unless you have a more accurate understanding of the Hebrew that you can show me, I will just have to stick with that precise grammar. I know that complementarians do not want to see this because they would prefer to believe that Adam was not deceived not because he had more knowledge of the Creator as the forming of the animals after Adam implies, but because he was the one that God communicated with personally and was given unique authority in the earth.
You also said that it might have taken Adam eight hours to name the animals. That’s possible, I don’t know. I only know that Adam was created on the same day as Eve and the animals were named before she was created. It certainly is possible that just as only two dogs were needed to take into Noah’s ark that could later mate and create all the different types of dogs and dog related animals, that Adam named the kinds of animals and not all the individual variations that we have today. Whatever the case, I believe scripture when it says he did the job and still had time to get his special bride.
I know you said that it is more plausible to you that the animals were created prior to Adam. That seems plausible to me too, however the text doesn’t say that and I find myself constrained by what the text literally says. I know that atheists have picked this up as well and challenged Christians with the second creation that seems obvious even to them. I think we would do well just to accept the text as written and admit that God did a special work of creation after Adam and before Eve. I say *special* work of creation because only one person ever was privileged to see that creative act. Wow! No wonder God blamed him for eating the fruit when he wasn’t deceived. He had no excuse at all!
Michael, I am so glad that we can discuss these things in a spirit of Christian love and these things don’t separate us as a brother and sister in Christ. I have seen more than enough separation of Christians these last three years to last me a life time. I pray that Christ will draw his body together in love so that we can use our gifts for mutual growth. There is so much for me to learn and I know that none of us is an island. We need each other’s wisdom and gifts as we all learn where we have missed the boat regarding truth. No one yet has arrived and knows the truth about everything.
Blessings!
Cheryl
December 6th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Cheryl, getting back to my earlier comment and your response, I am no sort of scholar and really hesitate to expose my ignorance on questions like this. It has also been quite some time since I studied that passage and coming to the tentative conclusion that I had earlier stated. I remember now, when again looking up the words that what struck me at that time was the relationship of authenteo to autodikeo. I think that that’s largely why I thought of the ‘talking over’ explanation.
I believe that the Adam and Eve parallel that Paul draws on has perhaps to do with the very specific use of the word didaskein in the context of the passing on of gospel tradition as opposed to general teaching. I think that the reason why the man is given this charge in this instance has perhaps more to do with a possible rabbinic studentship background for the particular persons (necessarily male) who were entrusted to carry or be the repository for Jesus’s ‘words of life’ i.e. the gospel (following Gerhardson). I don’t however feel that this is a sufficient explanation for Paul’s use of such a strong, creational, analogy. Perhaps the woman in question had defied Timothy’s attempts to request silence when the gospel was being taught… I don’t know.
Your explanation makes more sense from the whole letter rather than from just these couple of verses but whether it all connects up would be my main doubt.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Sam,
I don’t think that these kinds of conversations expose ignorance at all. I think they are wonderful at helping us as Christians to experience “iron sharpening ironâ€.
When I first understood that “aner” and “gune” together in a passage in relationship should be translated as husband and wife, I pondered on the same type of reasoning that you came up with. I thought perhaps that if a wife was to judge her husband’s prophecy along with the others and she found him wrong, that would embarrass him. However as I expanded my look at the verses to a larger view to include the entire chapter as well as chapter one where false deceived teachers are introduced, that view just didn’t make sense in the bigger picture. I found I had more problems than I could answer.
Now in your explanation that only the man was entrusted to carry or be the repository for Jesus’ words of life or the gospel, that would sound reasonable due to the restrictions on women at the time, but it has a big problem. The problem is that Jesus entrusted women with the gospel and Paul could not forbid what Jesus allowed.
For example to whom did the angel first reveal the good news that Jesus was risen? It was to the women at the tomb. In Matthew 28:7 the angel told the women to tell the good news to the disciples. In verse 10 Jesus meets them in person and tells them to pass on his message to the disciples. Here the women were the repository of the good news. When Jesus was still alive on the earth, the woman at the well was another woman whom Jesus talked to about the gospel and she went and spread the message in the town. In the New Testament and in the history of the early church no woman was ever stopped from giving out the gospel.
Rather than stopping the giving out of the gospel by women, verse 12 should rather be looked on as a verse surrounded by the problem of deception. If one takes into consideration the fact that Paul never told Timothy to forbid godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine (or the gospel for that matter!) to men, and his only concern was false doctrine and false teachers, verse 12 can attach it’s prohibition only onto the deception of Eve and the stopping of false deceived teachers from chapter one. There is no other explanation given and if we work outside the given context of deception and false teachers, we must read another explanation into the text. I think we are better off sticking to the context of false teachers and see how that fits first.
The last test of any view is how it fits with verse 15. In your view we would input it into verse 15 as “she (the woman who passes on the gospel to men) will be saved if all women continue on in faith, love and holiness with self-control. The problem fitting it into verse 15 is that it questions the salvation of the one passing on the gospel. That doesn’t seem to make any sense. Also how does what all women do, relate to the salvation of the one who passes on the gospel to men? I think it makes much more sense that the question of whether one is saved or not is questioned because of false teaching, not because of speaking forth of the gospel.
You may need to ponder this for awhile. It is a new thought for you, I am sure. If you read through chapters one and two again and watch how easily and without forcing the explanations I gave, fit into the context verse after verse after verse. And when the last verse is considered, which is the questioning of her salvation in verse 15, the package is neatly tied up and it all makes sense. If you can do that with any other explanation going verse by verse through chapters one and two, I would love to hear it.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
[...] There we have it – handling of God’s word becomes evil in a woman’s hands unless she discriminates against men and kicks them out of her bible study. Is this really God’s way, or have we misunderstood a difficult bible passage? It is our contention that this reading of scripture that allows the teaching of God’s word to be considered an evil thing is not a proper way to interpret 1Timothy 2:12. For a reasonable and logical way to read 1 Timothy 2:12 that does not attribute the teaching God’s word to be an evil act, click here to read What does 1 Timothy 2:11 - 15 mean? [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Hi Cheryl,
In Norman Geisler’s “When Critics Ask†writes (p. 35):
Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus of Chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:
Gen 1 vs Gen2
Chronological order vs Topical order
Outline vs Details
Creating animals vs naming animals
Douglas Jacoby in “Genesis, Science and History†writing about the alleged contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2, p. 102.
* To begin with, the focus of Genesis is man, not the creation. Genesis 1 gives us a panorama, then chapter 2 zooms in on man and his relationship with God. The focus will narrow further as Genesis moves from Abraham to his descendants through Isaac and to Isaac’s descendants through Jacob.
* Chapter 2 seems to have the animals being created after man, rather than before him, as in the sixth “day†of creation in chapter 1. Perhaps 2:19, which in the NIV is translated “had formed,†solves the apparent problem. Most versions translate the verb “formed,†reversing the time sequence. In Hebrew the distinction between perfect and pluperfect must be determined by context, since there exists no separate form for the pluperfect (past perfect).
* On the other hand, we are probably imposing our chronology on the text. The two accounts should be read as complementary, rather than as intersecting.
* To sum up, Genesis 1 shows man’s special place in the creation, while Genesis 2 shows man’s special relationship with God. No contradiction.
Looking at Jacoby’s second bullet, whether it perfect or pluperfect depends on context. It is not self evident from the text. Where should we look? To Genesis 1 where the animals were created before man.
As to Ross, I find him exceedingly persuading. The fact that an ancient pre-scientific and pre-literate people could come up with a creation sequence that matches everything we know about the formation of the earth from science (allowing for non 24 hour days) is absolutely startling! As to genealogies, the Hebrew scholars I have talked with, to a person, do not consider these to be a complete catalog of the generations. There purpose was to lift key individuals out of the lineage to say something about origin of the descendant. Genealogies covering the same lines seem to conflict with each other yet the often list a symbolic number of people from beginning to end.
Furthermore, because scientists have made revisions to their estimates speaks to imprecision not inaccuracy. I find no problem at all with humanity being 50,000 to 100,000 years old. I see nothing in Scripture that precludes this. However, this does provide a difficult riddle for the strict evolutionist since Neanderthal is the only potential hominid ancestor known to have survived to overlap with existence of modern humans and he has been eliminated and as genetic predecessor.
That the DNA suggests one date for the first man and an earlier date for the first woman is another puzzle the Bible might have the answer for. Everyone living is a descendant of Noah so all male genes trace to him. However, Noah’s sons each had wives, which means our common female ancestor is Eve through these three women. The diversity of the DNA trail for woman points to evidence for the Biblical Noah story.
I’ve gone too long, so I’ll leave it there for now.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I forgot to add.
“Michael, I am so glad that we can discuss these things in a spirit of Christian love and these things don’t separate us as a brother and sister in Christ.”
Amen! Keep up the good fight (for the truth that is, not with me.
!
December 7th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Michael,
You said: “Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them.â€
I agree with you that Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. Additions are not contradictions. In Luke 8:27, Luke says that Jesus was met by a demon possessed man. In Matthew 8:28, Matthew tells about the same meeting but says that Jesus was met by two demon possessed men. Is one a contradiction of the other? No. Luke’s concern is only about the one demon possessed man that was healed. Matthew sees the importance in telling us that two demon possessed men met Jesus. One of them was important because he was the one that was healed. There is no contradiction in the stories even though one account has more information. In the same way, Genesis chapter one gives the details of what was created on the days of creation. In Genesis chapter two, the creation of man is the focus. Chapter two also tells us that God created animals after Adam, because this part of the creation account is important because it relates to what happened to the man. Now this is not a contradiction at all. The animals were still created before Adam. Let’s look at it this way….if I ask you when mankind was created – before or after the animals were named, what would you say? If you said before, you would be correct. If you said after, you would be correct. If you said before and after you would also be correct. Mankind was created in two separate acts. The male was created before the animals were named and the female was created after the animals were named.
You also quoted Douglas Jacoby as saying: “Chapter 2 seems to have the animals being created after man, rather than before him, as in the sixth “day†of creation in chapter 1. Perhaps 2:19, which in the NIV is translated “had formed,†solves the apparent problem. Most versions translate the verb “formed,†reversing the time sequence. In Hebrew the distinction between perfect and pluperfect must be determined by context, since there exists no separate form for the pluperfect (past perfect).â€
In this quote you will notice that chapter 2 *seems to have the animals being created after man*. Also he says “*Perhaps* 2:19…solves the apparent problem.â€Â He says only *perhaps*. Why? He also admits that most versions do not use the pluperfect and they leave the grammar as reversing the time sequence. Herein lies two problems. The first problem is that the Hebrew grammar in Genesis 2:8, 19 does not allow for the pluperfect tense to be used in these verses. As Robert Bergen’s book verifies, there is no linguistic justification for the NIV’s rendering of these two verses as pluperfect. They were apparently trying to harmonize the creation events in chapter two with the order of chapter 1. However there was no contradiction to begin with that needed justifying. God can create the same animals once, twice or as many times as he sees fit. There was a plan and a purpose for him to create all the animal kinds for Adam’s benefit after he was created and we can’t argue that it wasn’t effective. The things that Adam saw before Eve was created cemented his understanding of who God is and Adam was not deceived by the serpent’s lies.
You also said: “Looking at Jacoby’s second bullet, whether it perfect or pluperfect depends on context. It is not self evident from the text. Where should we look? To Genesis 1 where the animals were created before man.†Actually that is only half of the story. If you were to check the reference in “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics†you would see that the pluperfect tense *cannot* be used unless the context meets the “criteria for unmarked temporal overlayâ€. In other words the passage in question MUST repeat lexical material to refer the reader back to an event that had already been mentioned.
In verse 8, the book says that the pluperfect tense cannot be used because there is no earlier mention of a garden. They say “Just the opposite is true. The mainline verb ‘and he formed man’ in 2:7 explicitly happens in the midst of a background setting where there was not yet any plant life.†So there is no justification at all to use the pluperfect tense in verse 8.
What about verse 19 where the animals are mentioned? Here the book says “Similarly for v. 19 with…’form’. This was not mentioned earlier, though one could claim that animals had been mentioned in chapter 1. Even with the animals, however, one does not find a back-reference to which this account in 2:19 can be considered an overlay. Looking at the question of a natural semantic relationship, we find that neither v. 8 nor v. 19 is readily perceivable as a reason or explanation of the immediately preceding sentences. We *must* read these verbs as normal sequential wayyiqtol verbs. Consequently, the NIV translation of Genesis 2 *must* be rejected from a discourse syntax perspective as a misuse of a poorly defined older syntax.â€
In agreement with this precise grammar is the Apostles’ bible (the English translation of the Septuagint) renders this verse sequentially after the creation of Adam “And God formed *yet farther* out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and He brought them to Adam…†You cannot form “yet farther†in the past. This can only be done in sequence after Adam was created.
So the question, I think we need to ask ourselves, is there a problem with accepting the text as written that shows the animals were created again after Adam? I don’t see a problem. It is not a contradiction of chapter one at all. Again, the grammar cannot be a pluperfect tense because it doesn’t match the criteria. If anyone contradicts that, they will have to show how the criteria of a pluperfect tense is matched by the two verses in question.
Now I think the *only* problem one might have is if one believes that the animals were created many millions of years ago. Having them created AGAIN after Adam was created might be a hurdle to jump. However I believe that we should accept the bible with the grammar that it was written with even if it might contradict our views. It would be better to adjust our views (if that is needed) than to change the grammar to match our viewpoints. That’s the way I have always looked at scripture, because my human understanding is fallible and I figure that if I subjected scripture to my own understanding, then I would be judging scripture instead of having it judge me.
Michael, you said “As to genealogies, the Hebrew scholars I have talked with, to a person, do not consider these to be a complete catalog of the generations. There purpose was to lift key individuals out of the lineage to say something about origin of the descendant. Genealogies covering the same lines seem to conflict with each other yet the often list a symbolic number of people from beginning to end.†All I can say here is that scripture is accurate regarding the age of the person when their child was born and the age of the person when they died when it comes to the ancestor’s in Genesis. Whether each one of their children is listed wouldn’t make a difference in the time line. We have enough information to calculate the time line with people who we know lived and died at a certain age and had children at a certain age. When we intersect their life line with the age that they were when their child was born and add in their lifeline of the age that child died and use that to go down the line, it is impossible to get 100,000 years out of humans. Well I suppose you could if you believe that the Bible was completely inaccurate about the age that the father was when his child was born and the age he was when he died. These are either facts or they are not. If they are facts they create a timeline.
When you put together only the facts that are listed in scripture and intersect them with only the facts of the next generation (which can’t be wrong or there would be errors in scripture) then we have a good picture of how long humans have been on this earth. We can also chart the number of people on the earth and if humans have been on earth for 100,000 years, I am wondering why there is even a bit of earth left for humans? If we work backwards with the population, we only get about 6,000 years with the human population even including wars and pestilences.
You also said: “I find no problem at all with humanity being 50,000 to 100,000 years old. I see nothing in Scripture that precludes this… That the DNA suggests one date for the first man and an earlier date for the first woman is another puzzle the Bible might have the answer for. Everyone living is a descendant of Noah so all male genes trace to him. However, Noah’s sons each had wives, which means our common female ancestor is Eve through these three women. The diversity of the DNA trail for woman points to evidence for the Biblical Noah story.†The idea that the first woman could be much older than the first man is a big red flag for me. It could not possibly have any agreement with the bible which clearly says that the first woman was made from the body of the first man. This part of Ross’ findings raises a big red flag for me. I don’t agree with his view that each creative day was millions of years long, but I can understand where he could try to fit that in. However there is no justification for having Eve older than Adam and if one just accepts that, one must reject the clear wording of scripture about the origin of the woman.
I also can see wonderful things that could come from the biblical Noah story that would trace humanity through one man once again; however that would have nothing to do with the origin of the first woman. Since the first woman got her DNA through the first man, we would have to end up with Adam no matter which way we looked at it. So if I read scripture and believe that Eve came from Adam, why would I accept a Christian journal that takes science’s calculations (that seem to change now and again) to make the first woman much older than the man? For me, and I am just talking about me here; it would be a crisis of faith. I would either have to accept scripture or accept science’s calculations. For me, it is a no-brainer. I just accept scripture and where it dovetails with science, I am fine and I accept both. Where it conflicts with science, I pick the bible.
I am not looking to convince you of anything, so I just shared how I test things and judge them. For me, it’s not an issue of Christian fellowship so it is not a hill to die on. I would like to challenge you, if I could with one thing. If Paul isn’t referencing the act of creation that Adam saw that would have solidified his understanding of who God is and how creation is only a work of his hands, then can you explain to me why Paul connects the order of creation to the deception of the deceived teacher in Ephesus?
Thanks for your input. It is always wonderful to dialogue with you. I appreciate your work and your obvious love for God!
December 9th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Hi Cheryl, just a couple general comments.
You briefly mentioned your “crisis of faith” about the Crucifixion timing. I made a chart some years ago that I derrived solely from scripture. It can be viewed at http://theology.fether.net/index.php?id=20 . I’d be interested to know if you think it makes sense.
Also, I totally agree that the Bible must come first in all things. We either trust God, who witnessed his own creative acts, or modern man, who wasn’t there and wouldn’t even dream of doubting Genesis unless godless people had proposed other ideas. Since non-YECs agree that science keeps changing its mind on what the facts are, science is therefore unreliable. The fact is that true science is not the issue at all, but interpretations of them based upon one’s worldview and philosophy.
This is Ross’s fatal error, as you pointed out. He has put, not science, but interpretation above scripture. And it is a constantly changing interpretation at that. AIG has some very revealing facts about Ross’s numerous scientific and exegetical blunders at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/hugh_ross.asp .
December 9th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Hi Paula,
You said: “Since non-YECs agree that science keeps changing its mind on what the facts are, science is therefore unreliable. The fact is that true science is not the issue at all, but interpretations of them based upon one’s worldview and philosophy.â€
That is the general idea that I get too from reading the material. When I have read Ross’ writings, I see that from his testimony he was looking for a religion that matched up with his worldview of an old earth. I find that when people come to the bible with a preconceived idea, they either find contradictions in the bible (because it contradicts their preconceived ideas) or they have to shoehorn the bible to fit into their worldview. That’s the part that I have a problem with. If we let the bible speak for itself instead of “fudging†to make the bible connect with our worldview, we usually have to change our worldview. The bible is just not going to be forced to fit someone’s idea. I am glad that you agree that scripture comes first.
I had a look at the chart you drew. It is interesting and some of the same things I found you show as well. You are one day off though. There are a couple of things that you missed. I will email you later with my findings and we can compare. It might take me a day or so to get things together to share with you. The biggest thing is that Jesus’ resurrection happened very shortly before he spoke to Mary at the tomb because he said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. If he had resurrected in the evening before that Sunday morning, he would have had plenty of time to ascend to the Father. Anyway, I’ll email and give you the whole scoop.
I appreciated your comments!
December 10th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
#1
Cheryl, your last comment was four pages single spaced when I copied into a word document. This post and the comments we are all making here may be your first book!
I am going to address several issues you raised but I am going to break them in to multiple posts. But first I want to lay some cards out on the table.
CBMW is fearful that if they let open the possibility that women are not subordinate then they will have opened the door to Scripture being discredited….
(Note from CHERYL: Michael has brought up some points that deserve to be answered regarding old earth versus young earth. I have moved all of his comments over to a new blog post called “Why was Adam not deceived?” in order to give that issue attention without tying up the 1 Timothy 2 post. All of Michael Kruse’s comments can be read here. I will also answer his comments as I am able to get to them. Thanks Michael for dialoguing in a respectful way
December 11th, 2006 at 3:39 am
Michael,
I am going to start another post on my blog to deal specifically with the issues that you have brought up regarding Genesis. I will move your comments over to that discussion so that we can keep the issue of the age of the earth separate from the 1 Timothy 2 passage comments. Hopefully that will make it easier to read.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:55 am
[...] 1 Timothy 2:13, 14 show that the first creation of Adam is connected to the fact that Adam was not deceived. Why was Adam not deceived? If the Hebrew text shows that God created the animals in two creative acts – one before Adam was created and one after Adam was created (but before Eve was created) – then we can understand that Adam had knowledge about the huge difference between God and creation that kept him safe from deception. See my summary of the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage explained in 20 short points posted here to understand the complete context of what we will be talking about in this post. [...]
December 29th, 2006 at 11:52 am
[...] One standing challenge that I have towards complementarians who believe that women are not allowed to teach the bible to men, is to show me from the complete context of 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 2 how they can fit into that passage the interpretation that God is not allowing godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. My exegesis of the passage in point form is found here. [...]