The rest of the story - 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and Matt Slick
Sep 30th, 2007 by Cheryl
Proverbs 18:17 (ESV) The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Scripture warns us not to make a hasty judgment on a matter. When two sides have conflicting interpretations, those who wish to be Bereans should be willing to carefully consider all of the facts from both sides of the issue first in order to avoid making a hasty judgment. This week the opportunity of hearing complete evidence, weighing the evidence and then judging between the two interpretations was stopped as I was barred from giving out my full view of 1 Timothy 2 on Matt Slick’s Faith and Reason show. Since brother Matt refused to allow me to give my conclusions as to what my full belief is and why I hold my view from scripture alone, and since Matt has subsequently banned me from coming back on his radio program, in all fairness to his listeners and to others who are interested in what I have to say, this post will present “the rest of the story”.
First if you haven’t heard the audio debate where Matt said that I was not polite and he also accused me of being a heretic, you will probably want to listen first by clicking here.
While Matt claims that 1 Timothy 2:12 is absolutely clear in its meaning, there are several very serious problems if we take the verses in this passage out of their context. Unless one can understand the whole teaching unit, it is dangerous to try to extract some part of it. For example if one takes 1 Timothy 2:15 in isolation, one might reason that a woman is saved by having children and this would question the salvation of unmarried, childless women. Verse 12 could be reasonably interpreted to restrict a woman from teaching any thing to any man. A woman couldn’t even give a man directions on how to find an address for fear that she would be teaching him something.
Taking 1 Timothy 2:12 out of its context would also cause the Bible to contradict itself since Priscilla taught the Bible to Apollos in Acts 18:26. 1 Timothy 2:12 does not say that a woman will be out from the restriction and allowed to teach a man when certain conditions are met. It simply says “I do not allow a woman to teach or authenteo a man”, period. 1 Timothy 2:12 also does not tell us why Priscilla was not disciplined for teaching a man. Was she wrong in teaching Apollos or are there exceptions? It also appears that any woman cannot teach any man anything since Paul used the negation particles ouk and oude translated usually “neither…nor” respectively. If there are exceptions and this is not a hard and fast law of God’s, then where are the exceptions listed? More problems comes with verse 14 which could be interpreted as all women are easily deceived and unreliable in regard to decision-making and women could be considered inferior because they were created second.
Is this passage really as “clear” as Matt would like us to think it is? If so, then why is it that we need another book to identify all the things that women can or can’t do? The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has created a whole section of white, grey and black applications of 1 Timothy 2:12 and this is to give directions to churches who can’t figure out from 1 Timothy 2:12 whether a woman can be an usher, serve communion, teach math at a high school or at a college or whether she can teach Hebrew in seminary even if she isn’t teaching the word of God per se. Who is authorized to make these rules and why don’t Christians and Churches know the answers to their questions if 1 Timothy 2:12 is so clear? The fact is that it isn’t a clear cut verse that can stand on its own. It must be taken in its context.
One of the most fundamental principles of Christian rationality is that God doesn’t contradict himself (2 Tim 2:13). Therefore, no Christian may offer an interpretation of any verse that contradicts any other verse. In order for 1 Timothy 2:12 to remain consistent with the rest of scripture, we need to work hard to understand Paul’s letter to Timothy as it would have been understood by the recipient. Timothy was a young apostolic representative of Paul’s who was appointed by Paul to deal with a bevy of false teachers and false teaching in Ephesus. Paul’s letter to Timothy was not written in chapter and verse so we need to read the whole letter in context. We also need to understand the reason for the letter. Paul said:
1 Timothy 3:14 (ALT) These [things] I write to you, hoping [or, expecting] to come to you soon.
1 Timothy 3:15 (ALT) But if I delay, [I write] so that you shall know how it is necessary to be conducting yourself in [the] house of God, which is [the] Assembly [or, Church] of the living God, [the] pillar and foundation of the truth.
Paul writes a personal letter to Timothy so that Timothy knows how to conduct himself in the body of Christ. Timothy is told how to handle the problems and the problem people that Paul was concerned about. Timothy must handle the problems with the deceived, the deceivers and one particularly thorny problem that required Paul to single a woman out from all the other false teachers.
This brings us to the most important verse that is necessary to deal with to understand the issue of women in ministry and Paul’s prohibition against teaching in 1 Timothy 2:15. Without a correct understanding of this verse, we risk falling into a pattern of unrighteous judgment against women. Why is this so important? Because there are those who say that women who teach the bible with authority are sinning against God and these women must be stopped. This is a very serious charge. The primary verse they derive this understanding from is 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Timothy 2:15 is so interconnected with verse 12 that to focus on a prohibition without highlighting the completion of the prohibition is a recipe for disaster.
The key to understanding the object of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, is found in the specific grammar of verse 15. Paul says:
“she will be saved if they…”
Through this hard passage of scripture, Paul has:
1. Given priority to the solution - Verse 11 is the only verse in the imperative. Timothy is commanded to “let a woman learn” 1 Timothy 2:11
2. Identified the subject of the prohibition - “a woman” 1 Timothy 2:12 is stopped from doing something
3. Identified the reason for the prohibition – the deception of the one who was not the first one formed. 1 Timothy 2:13 says “for” or “because” and 1 Timothy 2:14 says “and” thus connecting these two verses to the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12
4. Identified the action needed as a result of the prohibition – “continue in faith, love, holiness and self control”.
5. Identified the subject “she” in verse 15 (a 3rd person singular) and attaches a condition, ” if they continue”. Continue is aorist active subjunctive, third person plural, which is used by Paul to identify not only the woman doing the teaching, but also the man whom she is deceiving as mentioned in verse 12. If an action is required then the people required to do the action must be alive and not dead.
6. Identified the means of the solution – “saved”. This Greek word sozo is only ever used by Paul in his epistles in reference to spiritual salvation.
7. Identified the source of the solution - literally translated “the childbearing”. This word in Greek is teknogonia and is a unique word only used this one time in scripture and it is a noun and not a verb. It is a reference to the promised child, the Messiah who would be born to the woman and in spite of the deception of the first woman, the Messiah would come through her to destroy the deceiver.
8. Identifies the promise – “she” will be saved…if “they”
1 Timothy 2:15 (LITV) but she will be kept safe through the childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with sensibleness.
So while Paul prohibits “a woman” from teaching in verse 12, he goes on to promise her salvation in verse 15 “she shall be saved” if she continues in what he has commanded in verse 11 namely “let a woman learn”. This, in her case, was how she was to persevere in holiness etc.
I believe that the only way these verses can be understood at all is to reference verse 15 back to verses 11 and 12. I see no other way to take verse 15 with the precise grammar than to see that verses 11 and 12 are referencing a specific woman that Paul is prohibiting from teaching and influencing “a man” (the Greek word aner can also refer to a husband and with this close relationship with this woman, the Greek word aner I believe should be taken as husband because he is shown to be in direct relationship to “a woman” or “wife”.)
Why do I say that this is the only way to understand verse 15? It is because Paul has been so precise in his grammar that there is no other way we can get past the fact that he is stopping a specific woman in verse 12. The reason is that he says “she” and “they” in verse 15 and the only singular feminine that “she” can be attached to is “a woman” from verse 12. It is future tense so it cannot be Eve since Eve is dead. It cannot be taken to indicate a reference to plural women (as mistranslated in the NASB, NIV) since “she shall be saved” is a correct translation of the future tense, passive voice, 3rd person singular form of the verb sozo (sothesetai). Again, note that Paul also says “they”. “She” and “they” cannot refer to the same thing otherwise the grammar is nonsensical. “She” must be a specific woman and “they” must refer back to “a woman” together with “a man”. (I believe that “they” is unlikely to refer to women in general or that “a man” in verse 12 is men in general. The reason is that if “a woman” is required to complete the grammatical usage of “she” in verse 15, then it would be highly unlikely that Paul would say “a woman” to mean a specific woman and “a man” to be generic men. In that case Paul would be only working to confuse us instead of using specific grammar to identify specific people. If “a man” was meant to be men, then Paul should have grammatically said “I do not permit a woman from teaching or to authenteo men.” It is my view that Paul was consistent where he used the same grammar and so “a man” would be a particular man. Secondly since “she” and “they” were to do something together “continue on in faith, etc”, then a relationship between the “she” and “they” has been established. It is possible that Paul is requiring other women to work with this woman to help her get established in her faith, but the most direct reference back to “they” would be “a woman” and “a man” from verse 12 since no other living people are referenced that would allow the “they” to be a reference back to since “a woman” was introduced in verse 11.)
Why is all of this of such vital importance? It is because Paul is passionate about those who have been deceived. Paul says that the ones who are ignorant and thus act out of their unbelief are just like he was and they have the opportunity to receive mercy just like he did:
1 Timothy 1:13 (LITV) the one who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and insolent; but I received mercy, because being ignorant I did it in unbelief.
Paul tells us in his own words that he received mercy because he was ignorant of the truth and because of this, his sinful actions were done in unbelief. Paul is so focused on the salvation of the ignorant that he repeats the reason that he received mercy:
1 Timothy 1:15 (LITV) Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
1 Timothy 1:16 (LITV) But for this reason I received mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for an example to those being about to believe on Him to everlasting life.
Again Paul refers to his ignorance and his unbelief and says “but for this reason I received mercy“. Paul’s act of stopping the false teachers in 1 Timothy 1:3 is a heart of compassion for their salvation:
1 Timothy 1:3 (NASB) As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
1 Timothy 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
1 Timothy 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
Paul then picks up on one of these false teachers who is a special problem. It is easier for Timothy to stop the individual false teachers who are men, but one of these teachers is a woman and the man who is likely her husband is letting her influence him with her deception. There are two markers in the text that indicate that the man is likely the woman’s husband. The first marker is in verse 11 “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” It was normative for a woman to be married and if she was required to have entire submissiveness then this was a sign that she was married because “entire submissiveness” is only ever spoken of as something that a wife does for her husband. Secondly for a single woman to be teaching a single man on an on-going basis would be highly unlikely in that culture unless he was married to her. The cultural norm was that men kept their distance from women who were not their wives. Even Priscilla was not alone when she taught Apollos. Her husband was with her.
With Timothy’s timidity, being a very young apostolic representative would have caused him problems in dealing with a specific false teacher who was likely married to the man whom she was influencing. For Timothy to stop her meant that he was interfering in her marriage. Her husband (or “a man”) was not stopping her from teaching error. In fact he was being influenced by her in a way that Paul likens the situation to that of Adam and Eve (the first married couple). The husband Adam was not deceived but his wife was the one who fell into sin through deception. The man in verse 12 is like Adam who was not in a place of deception (Paul does not say in verse 15 “they” will be saved if “they”. He only says “she” will be saved if “they”.) The question of salvation is directly tied to the woman alone and her teaching had to be stopped even if it was interfering in a marriage where the husband was taking no responsibility for the problem. Timid Timothy was reminded in 2 Timothy 1:6, 7 that we need to operate in our gifts without timidity (even if he is correcting someone else’s wife!)
2 Timothy 1:6 (NASB) For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
2 Timothy 1:7 (NASB) For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.
Paul’s reminding Timothy that God wants us to act in power and not with timidity shows us that Timothy’s age may have been an additional component showing us why Paul wrote the way he did to Timothy. The stopping of this one deceived woman would require Paul to push Timothy to act out of compassion for her salvation. Paul then promises that she too can be saved just like he was. This is not a woman who was a deliberate deceiver and the action was not to kick her out of the body of Christ as Paul had done when he turned Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan:
1 Timothy 1:19 NASB keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.
1 Timothy 2:20 (NASB) Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
Paul’s belief was that she was one of the ones who were acting ignorantly and in unbelief so that she too could receive mercy if she was taught the truth. Paul’s words that she *will* be saved if… shows us the confidence that God was going to show this woman mercy just as he showed Paul mercy at the time that Paul was acting in ignorance and unbelief.
Now for those who think that the word for “teach” didasko cannot refer to false teaching because Paul didn’t specifically use the word for “another teaching” heterodidaskaleo in Greek, we only have to turn to the book of Revelation to see that John used didasko twice to reference false teaching.
Rev 2:14 ‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
Rev 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
Revelation 2:20 is an interesting case because teach and lead are attached together and both are negative things. Didasko is used here without a doubt to reference false teaching. Also the Lord Jesus does not say that he has something against the church in Pergamum because they have a woman leading and teaching as if it was her gender that was the problem but rather that she was teaching error. Scripture says that she calls herself a prophetess but God did not call her this. God does gift women as prophetesses (Acts 21:9). Deborah was not only a prophetess, but she was also a judge over Israel, chosen and gifted by God. But the woman in Revelation 2:20 was not one of the true teachers of God’s word and the evidence was not her gender but her teaching.
Again, it seems that if a traditionalist interpretation is taken, then 1 Timothy 2:12 is a clear blanket statement that prevents a godly Christian woman from teaching true doctrine to adult men. Where does the Bible have a law prohibiting this? I believe this is a large inconsistency in the complementarian understanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and inconsistency is one of the signs of a failed argument.
Instead this passage is best seen as a complete story of ignorance, unbelief, false teaching and ultimate salvation through the correct teaching of biblical doctrine that leads to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (the promised Messiah through the woman see 1 Timothy 2:15 and Genesis 3:15). After many years of study, this is what I conclude about the meaning of this passage. This is what makes sense to me given everything in the context of verses 12 and 15. I recognize that other sincere, godly people have come to different conclusions from mine, but I think that this interpretation deserves to be given a fair hearing. To this date no one has shown me any other valid option for the “she” in 1 Timothy 2:15, nor have they shown me any scripture where God prohibited his words from being spoken through a woman. As lovers of the incarnate Word and the written word we should always try to practice consistent, contextual interpretation. In my opinion, for us to take one verse and rip it from its inspired context is to refuse to rightly divide the word of truth:
2 Timothy 2:15 NASB Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
This is the message that I was prohibited from sharing on Matt Slick’s radio program Faith and Reason. Matt forbid me from sharing why I believed that 1 Timothy 2:12 was referencing one specific deceived woman the first two times that I appeared on his program and he has forbidden me from coming back on his radio program to share the rest of the scripture on this passage. What this does is leave my teaching hanging so that people are not able to understand what I was saying about this difficult passage. Matt says that I was not polite to him and that is why I cannot come back. Listen here to the second session with Matt Slick and you decide for yourself if I was polite or not.
Those who hold back the words of God that are spoken with authority by a woman will have to answer to God. 1 Peter 4:10 and 11 gives women not only the right to speak for God but the obligation to do so:
1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God;…
Since Peter is not limiting those who speak the utterances of God to men, Paul too would not have contradicted the word of God spoken through Peter. In 1 Timothy 3 Paul is not digressing into an unconnected subject about how to pick overseers and deacons. Instead Paul is continuing on to give hope that anyone can aspire to a place of responsibility and servanthood even though a person had been previously deceived. Those who had been false teachers and who submitted themselves to correction might be restored to such a ministry. Paul himself had been deceived in ignorance and unbelief and thus he obtained mercy. Paul’s original state of deception did not stop him from moving on to maturity and to greater responsibility as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus.
Women who believe 1 Peter 4:11 and obey the command to teach with authority as one who is “speaking the utterances of God” should not be accused of sinning against God when they employ their gift to “serve one another” in the entire body of Christ. For those who teach that men alone are allowed to give out God’s word with authority, I ask a pointed question about authority. When a godly woman teaches orthodox doctrine from God’s inerrant word, where does the “authority” reside, in the woman or in God’s word? If authority is in God’s word alone, then there is no special authority given to one gender alone to give forth God’s words just as there is no special authority for only one gender to hear from God. We need to test all things and hold fast to what is good.
In closing, we want to be very careful that we do not rip 1 Timothy 2:12 from its context because some who have done this in the past have taken the church into a precarious position where the world sees us as prejudiced and unkind to women. May God help us to stand up for women and release them into his service.
*Copyright 2007 by Cheryl Schatz. Permission is granted to use this article to post on a web site or on a blog site as long as it is kept in its original full form without editing and that credit is given to myself and a link back to this blog site www.strivetoenter.com/wim. For any other use, please contact me at
mmoutreach
Thanks for your hard work and insight into this puzzling passage of Scripture. I agree with you that 1 Tim 2:15 is critical to understanding 1 Tim 2:12. So let us strive to not take a verse out of context (and you help us here to avoid this pitfall), as then it can become a pretext for almost anything.
Thank you Don!
If anyone knows of a place to post my article or a link to this article on other blogs/web sites, etc to help get the message out, it would be greatly appreciated!
Blessings!
Cheryl
Cheryl, this is a helpful post. I have linked to it at the new Complegalitarian blog.
Great!! Thanks Wayne!
THE KEY PHRASE IS “A WOMAN” MEANING “ONE” WOMAN! WE SEE A PATTERN HERE FROM GOD ON GRAMMER!
Luke 8:43
And A WOMAN having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
Luke 8:42-44 (in Context) Luke 8 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 13:11
And, behold, there was A WOMAN which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
Luke 13:10-12 (in Context) Luke 13 (Whole Chapter)
John 8:3
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him A WOMAN taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
John 8:2-4 (in Context) John 8 (Whole Chapter)
Matt doesn’t even want to explain about what paul said!
We are all guilty before God and need Christ! We see from ALL of scripture on Saul/Paul how God dealt with him. He knew how saul got to that point and only God knew how to correct him an make him Paul!
Now on Tim.
Adam and Eve were Husband an Wife. There was a problem in that church that was just like what happen in the garden. Adam knew his wife didn’t have the whole thing yet he let his untaught wife be tricked! That man or husband needs to school her his wife in truth of God’s word because he (a man/the husband) is educated the wife or woman is not and needs to learn.
He (matt) was very rude, he didn’t want to listen to you but because it was on the radio he “tried”/”Pretend” to be understanding but wasn’t. Matt sounded like a big bully and then stated to attack You as a person instead of the issue! I Don’t find matt answer any good!
as for (a woman) the woman would have to ask meaningful questions about her error so she can be corrected!
also if you act one way in church saying women can’t teach but it doesn’t matter out in the world. It’s ok for a women to be my bank teller or ring me up at a store or fly the plane I’m riding in etc.That makes someone a Hypocrite acxting one way at church another way outside of church, right. This guy is fully of man made wisdom of this world not of God. You were so humble and he was Not! He shouldn’t be a pastor he treats women like slaves…sorry we are from the FREE WOMAN Not the Slave One Book of Peter!
Matt said:”This is my show”….
what an ass he was, Pride is his sin, do not keep silence you just expose him!
why can’t you say along sentence ,God never put a limit on a sentence?!
When paul told Timothy to “Silence” her it was just on her false teaching, not a total silence, she could still say hello and how are you and asks meaningful questions, quoting the false error she was taught then being silence to receive the correcting of Truth, just like how we learned in high school today.
And Give an update on her even let her share to the church how she has learned The Faith and even thank Paul & Timothy and God for correcting her! What a testimony for all churches!
No mention of them else were in scripture, so maybe this matter/ sitution in time was corrected! Just like Adam & Eve by there actions they put faith in God. Adam calling the woman Eve meaning Life or life bearer, putting faith in the prophesy. Eve praising God for giving birth. In the orig. Herbrew the wording is such that she must have throught cain was the promise seed but as we know time proved he wasn’t. Put the bottom line is Adam & Eve were saved. Plus God killed an animal (Must have been a Lamb) an clothed them BOTH.
I hope this understanding helps.
John 8:3
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him A WOMAN taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
John 8:2-4 (in Context) John 8 (Whole Chapter)
notice the woman is brought to be judged or killed by stoning yet were is the man? Under the law BOTH woman & man were stoned to death for adultery not just one sex! It goes to show the pharisees and we also see this today, how far off they were with God and his Word, that they just wanted to use the scripture/bible to control people and make it say things it doesn’t like matt was trying to do! But if you don’t know your bible people will try an get away with stuff like this, history repeats itself! Matt sounded like a pharisee, I got a flash back of the JW’s when I heard him on the radio clip!
On the way Greek works, there is a definite article (in English “the”) but there is no indefinite article (in English “a/an”). If there is a noun like gune (woman), then it MIGHT be definite, it might be indefinite, it might be best translated with no article at all, and it even might be describing a group with a property (not with gune per se, but with other nouns). This is a judgment call of the translator based on other clues. A similar judgment call is made on whether gune should be translated as woman or wife, based on other clues.
Cheryl has given her reasons why she would translate as she did, which I find very persuasive. I do not find the male hierarchicalists reasons for their understanding anywhere near as persuasive.
A good example of a word describing a group is the of-mistranslated “huios” when it appears with another noun. For example, what it typically translated “the sons of Israel” should really be “Israelites”; it doesn’t mean only the males. (stole that from Dr. Nyland’s notes)
But it does point out an inherent problem with the old “plain meaning” argument. Translators make a lot of judgment calls, and the cults take great advantage of this. And we know that mere consensus is not always dependable, as in the case of whether Junia was a female or not. Consensus often comes from shared prejudices and not acknowledged scholarship or attestation.
As far as I know, every scholar believes Paul’s meaning in this passage is “a woman” and “a man”, and I’m not aware of any lack of attestation or scholarly doubt about it. If there were disagreement over the articles I’d think at least one comp. would have jumped on it.
The JPS English version of the Tanakh makes that simple claim that it is “a translation from the Hebrew”. It makes no claim to the “THE OFFICIAL JEWISH translation” or even “the best translation”, just that it is one possible faithful translation, and they (at least implicitly) admit that other faithful translations are possible.
The same is true for the NT.
On “huios” it does mean “sons” as a primary meaning, it is just that “sons” can include daughters, that is, the male plural forms are used for a group that has at least one male in it (like 1950’s English), so the group might be all male or it might not be, one needs to look for other clues. If there are no other clues, then one makes a best guess. The same is true for woman/wife, one looks for other clues and sometimes reasonable people can disagree.
Cheryl,
I have heard, read, studied, researched, and picked apart the langage of 1 Tim. 2 with it’s possible meaning from every imaginable point of view from every imaginable scholar I could find over the past 40 years.
No one, anywhere I’ve read or heard has said it any better or more clearly FROM THE TEXT than have you. You have gone exceedingly above and beyond without loosing character or cool. Whatever position one were to hold on this passage, [your's has captured me] you will be held in high esteem by all who appreciate good biblical interpretation and grace. You have demonstrated both. Thank you.
Paul Burleson,
I totally agree with you! On the opposing view I find they read so much into the text and make it say something that just isn’t there. When I saw the video “Women In Ministry…” I was like that’s it! Str8 from the TEXT alone! Scripture is Light, so Light reveals Light and exposes what’s in the Dark! Scripture said we have to righty divide the Word of Truth, an Cheryl has done that.
In my spirit I see Cheryl teaching as Humble,Meek,Truthful. The otherside I see Pride,Anger,Bondage, unreasonableness etc. They sound like Pharisees, I’m not doubting there salvation pre-say but it makes me wonder sometimes.
We read in scripture how the legalist were spying out there ( THE EARLY CHRUCH) Liberty! Alot had to do with the women! When they saw them Learning,Teaching,Preaching equally with the men, they wanted to stop it! That’s my understanding of scripture!
It’s funny Jesus Never told a women she can’t learn,teach,preach! Or that she has a different funtion!
Here you go Cheryl: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/10/most-consistent-interpretation-of-1-tim.html
Pastor Paul,
What amazing words of confidence you have given me! I thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Don,
Thank you for being persuaded from scripture alone!
Michael,
I am so glad that I was able to help you and that you could recognize truth because your heart was open to see truth.
Dusman,
Thank you for the link and as a video editor myself, let me say I loved the picture!
To all of you,
I am humbled by your gracious words to me. I think I really needed that after being called a heretic!
Blessings,
Cheryl
I have long appreciated carm.org which is Slick’s excellent apologetics website. But I have heard some thing on his radio program that bother me greatly.
After this I unfortunately will have to strongly consider removing his link from my website.
I just left a comment on Matt’s blog asking him to publicly retract his charge of you as a heretic. It has not been posted yet due to comment moderation but I hope he retracts it. Could care less if he posts my comment.
Thank you David for your support. I posted too on his podcast blog asking him and/or his supporters to read “the rest of the story” here. Something tells me that my comments won’t make the grade either. It is so sad. All the years I worked with Jehovah’s Witnesses leading them to the Lord and now they are being told that I am the heretic? The Watchtower tactic was always to keep the reigns tight so that others cannot hear the truth. They say don’t read that book, or watch that TV show or take any religious literature from anyone. Matt is acting that way. He has stopped me from saying the rest of the story, told me that I have to be silent (a.k.a “shut up”) and forbidden me from coming back on his radio show. He did originally say that I was allowed back only if I agreed to supply in writing my entire argument so that he had in advance what I was going to say and I had to agree to speak no longer than 1.5 minutes per question. When I agreed to his restrictions, he rescinded the invitation. I guess that it is okay to have on atheists and all kinds of heretics, but he doesn’t want his audience to hear a woman teach her interpretation of the bible even if he gets to try to refute me and he gets to control the mike. I find this just so sad! What will the atheists think about this? Christians calling other Christians heretics.
I agree with Wade that the term “heretic” needs to be reserved for cases where the essentials are being denied or distorted. If we term people heretics just because they don’t fully agree with every point of doctrine, then we all would be heretics.
In case anyone is interested the link to Matt Slick’s podcast blog where they refer to my teaching as heresy is http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2007/09/matt-slick-and-cheryl-part-two-926.html
If anyone else would like to ask Matt to rescind his charge, I think that it might wake him up concerning his attitude.
I just signed up and posted my comment on Matt’s site Defending My/Our dear sister Cheryl! What I posted is below because I have a feeling he won’t post my comment! You are all my witnesses to what I have typed so it can’t be cut apart or taken out of Context!
Cheryl is NOT a “heretic”! You shouldn’t be a Pastor Matt you were so rude on the radio. I can sense alot of Pride,Anger, Unreasonableness in you,Quality’s a Teacher/Leader should NEVER be found in!
You like to read into scripture and make it say things it doesn’t. I don’t know you from Adam and when I heard you on the radio for the first time,your attitude was so pagan I was shocked that your are a pastor!
An you won’t even let her come back to explain Her side of the issue even after she agreed to your
“restrictions”! You want one word yes & no answers but the Yes & No answers Musted be explained and it’s CONTEXT so we can understand why a answer is Yes & No! You kept cutting off Cheryl.
If you post this comment that will suprise me! I’ve heard your not posting any postive comments on Cheryl on your blog only people who agree with your side?
Why not present BOTH views an let the person (Christian)/listern make there own choice on this matter with the help of The Holy Spirit. The way you hidden things like comments etc on your blog and your reading your own throughts/words into scripture, your no different then a cult!
Thanks for reading, Oh an remember your going to have to answer to Christ on this matter!All will be judged!
Can you do a study on ACTS 15, because on Matt’s site this woman was using acts 15 to teach that only males were there. All one has to do is look up the greek and see if the words “Men” “Brothers” etc also mean/ include women/female/humanbeings! Also we need the Context of the full matter if there were only men there. Because that Cha15 in acts doesn’t say anything about a woman/women can’t teach! It saids nothing of the kind, so what if all men were there, it doesn’t explain the issue. I’ll have to look up the greek now an get back on this. But first i must pray for the leadinf of the spirit.
Here is my quick research to keep things short, sweet and truthful
The word “brethren” in ACTS 15
The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong’s Number: 80 a)delfo/v
Original Word Word Origin
a)delfo/v from (1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Adelphos ad-el-fos’
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Masculine 1:144,22
Definition
1.a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2.having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3.any fellow or man
4.a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5.an associate in employment or office
6.brethren in Christ
a)his brothers by blood
b)all men
c)apostles
d)Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
Translated Words
KJV (346) - brethren, 226; brother, 113; brother’s, 6; brother’s way, 1;
NAS (173) - believing husband, 1; brethren, 13; brother, 111; brother’s, 8; brothers, 40;
So the word “brethren” IN context here is christians male & female!
It doesn’t mean just Male Gender But can apply to BOTH sexes/gender!
The whole Cha 15 once read: Context is that this is a mixed crowd Unbelievers( Men) & Believers (Brethren) & Old & Young, Male & Female
This is just on one word “Brethren” from cha. 15 of Acts!
This in noway is a full study on this Cha or on the full greek word for word. But this is a quick look and one word lookup in the greek on “Brethren!
Even the word “elder” in the greek is not just male only use but can also be female!
Why does the NAS bible cut it down an refur to women only 1 time and applyed to Male many times. Yet the KJV has it right 64 times elder woman!!!! only one time for old man! It’s like the tranlators of NAS fliped the KJV tranlation use! Now which bible are we going to believe, I stick mostly with KJV!
Translated Words
KJV (67) - elder, 64; elder woman, 1; eldest, 1; old man, 1;
NAS (67) - elder, 3; elders, 57; men of old, 1; old men, 1; older, 1; older man, 1; older ones, 1; older women, 1; women, 1;
I made a mistake sorry of the number of times the word elder is used on women!
only once for woman but 64 times “elder” is used an means a old person man or woman!
Notice that the NAS “ADDS” more male phrases to it’s use yet both NAS & KJV use it the same number of times 67 throughout scripture!
This mistake that has now been corrected still doesn’t change the fact that there must have be women there an or women elders too!
The KJV bible does use the word more correctly!
The NAS has 3 male phrases for the use of elder an 2 for female
Yet KJV equally one phrase for Male one for Female!
NAS elder, 3; elders, 57 times used
KJV elder, 64; times used
why add extra phrase’s? Why does NAS bible use a total of 9 phrases and KJV has a total use of 4 phrases on the word “Elder”.
Did the tranlators of the NAS want to exclude women somehow by adding in more meanings? Just a Throught
Also in NAS in Romans 16 it uses the male form Junias
KJV uses the female form Junia,
which is a name like tiffany it can Only be female, plus the name was commonly used as female only we see that in History/Writings of old!
On Acts 15, in Greek the male plural form for a group can be used when at least one member of the group is a male. So a group of “brothers” may or may not include “sisters”. One needs to try to discern from other clues what is the intent. This is just the way Greek works. So that person’s rationale on CARM simply falls apart as being conclusive.
For example, Luke clarifies that some of the disciples of Jesus were women. Certainly some of the people in the Jerusalem church were women.
The sad part is the one pushing for gender-based limitation are following the Pharisee Legalists’ position, but even then they are not heretics. That is, one can be wrong in one’s understanding of many things the Bible teaches yet not be a heretic.
Cheryl,
Thanks for sharing your conclusion with us. I have not listened to the MP3 that you provided, I will be loading it onto my MP3 player and will listen to it on my way to work. But your conclusion is very interesting. I will be researching and considering some of the points that you have presented.
Also, I am sure you have not forgotten, but the author of Hebrews does tell his readers that they all should be “teaching” by now. But they are still on the milk. I suppose some would say that he was only writing to men, but for some reason I doubt that.
Thanks again!
God’s Glory,
Lew A
The Pursuit Online Store
Reading through this, I have such respect for you, Cheryl, to take such persecution with grace! I never heard of Matt Slick, but I have felt oppressed as a Christian woman. And the verse you are discussing above is one of the “clubs”.
I prayed and asked God to show me what 1Tim 2:11-15 means.
I want to share where that went. I am not as knowledgable as you in the greek, but it does not seem incompatible with your findings:
This is the rendering which I think reflects the meaning of the verse:
She (Eve/woman) will be saved (restored) through bearing the child if they (women) continue in…
How could it mean Christian “salvation” because it is dependant upon “they”?
“will be restored” is in the future.
Restored HOW?
I think it refers to the verse before (see below)
I think in any woman who allows Jesus to be formed in her and “continues in…” Eve/woman is restored to the garden state before the transgression: garden intimacy, partaking of the “tree of life”/Jesus, garden dominion/authority.
Quote:
1Tim 2:14-15 interlinear
Adam not was-deceived the but woman being-deceived in transgression has-become;
She-will-be-saved but through the childbearing if they-remain in faith and love and holiness with sensibleness
Taken with my understanding of 1Tim 2:14, “THE CHILD bearing”/Christ being formed in me
(see also Gal 4:19-5:1 and Rev 12 - parallel passages on the childbirthing)
this interpretation would resolve the appearance that the curse on Eve seems to exempt single women:
Quote:
Ge 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Lew,
You are welcome! If I can help you in any way, please let me know.
Regarding Hebrews 5:12-14, the Greek is plural masculine but this does not mean that women are not in the group. The masculine grammar is the default position with generic passages. For example:
Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Matthew 16:25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
“Anyone” and “whoever” are singular masculine. Are only men allowed to come after Jesus? Are only men required to take up their cross and following Christ? No, not at all. All of the salvation passages are in the masculine grammatical form, but all of them include both men and women. If we exclude women in Hebrews 5:12-14 regarding the believers who should be teachers, then is it true that the solid food is only for men and only men can be mature? Hardly! These passages are regarding both men and women and women too should be striving to rightly divide the word of truth:
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.
If we leave the accurate handling of the word of God to the men alone, then we are leaving women as children relying on the men for maturity instead of working hard to be mature themselves in the truth.
I see it as a promise to any woman, that she can be restored to garden intimacy with Christ, eating from the Tree of Life/Jesus and Garden Authority/Dominion which was undermined in the fall (for all women, not just married women). Personally, I was a christian woman guilty of “husband idolatry”. It is not until I repented from that and put Jesus in His rightful place as my “ONE HUSBAND*” that I am enjoying liberty in Christ.
2Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to *ONE HUSBAND*, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.
Charis,
Thank you for your kind words!
It is always good to talk about different interpretations and how they fit in the context. I agree with what you said that women often are guilty of putting their husband over and above Christ. And we all (men and women) can have our minds corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Regarding your thoughts about “a woman” as being all women who can be restored to the garden intimacy with Christ, this view has some problems.
You said:
The fact is that good hermeneutics requires us to check out the meaning for “saved” to see how Paul has used this elsewhere. Paul never ever used this word in his epistles to mean anything else but biblical salvation. We may be confused about what he is actually saying in verse 15, but we still have to be consistent.
The basic meaning of the verb sozo is to rescue from peril, to protect, keep alive. Sozo involves the preservation of life, either physical or spiritual. There are two clues that Paul meant spiritual salvation. The first clue is that he does not use this word in any other way in his epistles. The second clue is that he ties it in with “the childbearing”. It is a definite noun. What one child is tied in with salvation? The only answer we can give is the Christ child. Now if we make “a woman” to be all women, then we actually have Paul prescribing a different method of salvation for women in general and that isn’t consistent with scripture.
However if we have Paul prescribing a way for a particular deceived woman to become “deprogrammed” from her deception (he commanded Timothy to let her learn) so that she will be in a place to continue on in the true faith, then it makes sense. Think about it this way - what would you say that a deceived person needs to do to be saved? You could tell them that they need to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, but how does a deceived person do that if they have the wrong Jesus, the wrong gospel and the wrong spirit? (2 Corinthians 11:3,4) The answer is that they need to learn the truth. They need to sit in submission to good godly teaching of correct biblical doctrine so that they can unravel the error. Then and only then will they be in a position to know the truth and be saved.
Maybe it just makes so much sense to me because I have been actively involved in helping Jehovah’s Witnesses come to faith in Christ for 16 years in a support group setting. They needed to have their false doctrine unraveled before they could accept the truth. When their eyes started popping open by what they were seeing in scripture, it was very rewarding to me to teach them about Jesus.
Does this make sense at all? And by the way, I believe that you are here because you asked Jesus to teach you. You are on the right road, but there is more for you to learn. Each word in this passage is important and we need to understand who the “she” is without confusing the “she” with the “they” before we can fully understand this passage.
voiceofsanity said,
“It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.”
My friend, it might be helpful if you actually refuted Cheryl’s *exegesis rather than make bare-naked assertions like “he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you . . .”.
voiceofsanity,
Clearly you do not know me. I came to this passage ready to accept what God said no matter what. If it meant that I was to stop teaching the bible to men and I had to kick out all the ex-JW’s who were men, then so be it. I probably would have just stopped teaching period, because I could not be prejudiced against people in all good conscience.
As far as 2000 years of scholarship on Matt’s side, let me point out that for 2,000 years this passage has not been understood. If you look in any commentary, they will tell you that the church has not been sure what Paul is getting at in verse 15. No one has made complete sense of this verse before without contradictions.
I came to the passage wanting to know what it meant. I believe that I know and I ask you to show me any contradictions in the passage regarding my understanding of it. Surely if I am wrong then there will be discrepancies. Show me any discrepancies. If you cannot, then why not?
True biblical scholarship is about consistency and honesty. I have been both consistent in my exegesis and honesty in my approach to scripture. To say otherwise is to judge my heart and that would be inconsistent with scripture to judge me in that way.
Also if anyone wants to interact with Matt regarding his calling me a heretic his email is carmradio@gmail.com and his phone number for his radio show is 208-377-3790. He takes calls Monday to Thursday between 6 - 7 Mountain time. (That is 5-6 pm Pacific, 7-8 pm Central and 8-9 Eastern time).
If Matt actually had some serious callers dispute his way of dealing with me rather than just his “Carmites” emailing him and phoning him (Carmites is a term Matt has coined for those who are his followers - i.e. followers of CARM) perhaps Matt might consider changing his ways, and maybe even have me back on his program for one last time! Well, not likely but it doesn’t hurt to try.
Also thanks to Pastor Wade Burleson for linking to my article and posting on the radio discussion that I had with Matt Slick. Pastor Wade’s blog article is at http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-use-of-word-heretic-is-unhelpful.html
Hey Cheryl,
I had a chance to listen to the radio interview on my way to work today. He was not very nice, and it seemed like he wrote you off from the get-go. But he did bring up some good points that you will need to deal with in the future. Even though he was being a jerk about it, he was right in saying that you need to try to be more concise with your answers. I know it was your first (second) time being interviewed on the radio, and he was not being gracious to you at all, but it is something you might want to consider. If you are able to practice on someone that might help. The better you are at presenting your ideas the less he will be able to challenge them.
Remember, too, this is his show - he’s use to these sorts of encounters, and he is going to try to fluster you anyway he can. It seems like he does not care to hear what you have to say, so you might want to try to talk through him… answer his questions to his satisfaction, but do it in a way that reaches his listeners. I doubt that you will be changing his mind anytime soon.
You should prepare yourself too by asking yourself what kind of objections will he come to you with. I think this was part of the problem. In a way you expected him to listen to you and want you to share your interpretation… but in reality he wanted to challenge you. Not being prepared for the challenge made you lose credibility to his audience. You may want to sit down and write out everything that you know that people believe about these passages, and in 100 words or less explain why that belief is flawed. Do the same with your own position. Knowing the flaws in your argument will only help you strengthen your argument (or throw it away if it is wrong).
If you can, go back and listen to his objections, listen to the things he ignored and try to figure out why he ignored them. Was it your presentation? Was it his presuppositions? Was it his misunderstanding of what you were saying? — How can you deal with combating these things.
I think you made a really good point by asking him if he was saying that woman could not teach truth - but he did not understand your point. He kept cutting you off and getting you side-tracked. Then he would blame you for getting side-tracked. Try not to let this happen. If he asks about X, then only deal with X, if he starts chasing a rabbit, lead him back and do it firmly (but lovingly).
Anyways, I hope you don’t see these words are condemning. I just want to try to help you do better if he gives you another opportunity to speak. I think it could go a lot better.
God’s Glory,
Lew A
The Pursuit Online Store
Cheryl, I don’t know where the link is to the comments in the Slick website. Did your post ever appear (the outline one)? If so, was it unedited? (trying not to laugh now)
Lew,
Great points! I will definitely be better the next time but probably will never be the best debater. I am much more of a deep thinker than I am a fast talker. Plus I have this respect-thing in my head that I have a hard time pushing someone to answer a question that they are avoiding. I don’t want to be disrespectful and I am not sure how successful a person can be in debate unless they push people. I have this fear thing going on too when it comes to anything “live” and God helped me through but it was all him and none of me. If you see my video clips (look for “women in ministry silenced or set free” on youtube.com) you will see me what I perform like after many outtakes. It is far easier to be the research person and to have my nose in the scripture because to have people looking at me and hearing me “live” is quite a source of angst. That isn’t always good for thinking fast on one’s feet. I have all the answers to Matt’s questions perhaps in a way that he would hear them better once off the air.
The reason I agreed to go on the radio show was to defend his charge of sin against women. I was not there to prove that women can be Pastors. It isn’t that I have nothing to say about this, but there are much more important things that must precede the discussion on Pastors. i.e. can a woman teach the bible to men? And is it a sin for a woman to teach the bible or be a Pastor? Once these two key questions are answered, then we can move on.
Regarding talking faster and less words, I offered to do that. Matt asked me to keep my answers down to 1.5 minutes. I agreed but asked him to give me the questions in advance so that I could work on short answers. The offer no longer stands and he has forbidden me to come back on. There is not much I can do although for what it is worth, some of the fear is gone of live radio and having been called a heretic already, what else is there to fear? And if I can trust God with my salvation, I certainly can trust him to help me learn how to “do” radio.
Lew,
One last thing…do you want to be my coach? I could use all the help I can get!
teknomom,
I posted a much shorter version first just in case they were hesitant to put up anything longer. He already thinks I am long winded!
The podcast blog is here http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2007/09/matt-slick-and-cheryl-part-two-926.html
and no the comment has not been approved and neither has anyone else’s comments. I highly doubt that Matt or Diane will post my comment since they already took of the advertising to my DVDs from the audio on their podcast (said they wouldn’t allow advertising for heresy!) Since I haven’t changed my exegesis since I was on the show, I am assuming that I am still a heretic to them and nothing I post will show up. Wouldn’t that be a blessing if I was wrong?
Sure would. Thanks!
I should reword this…when I said that the “offer no longer stands” what I mean was that Matt rescinded his offer to have me back on his program. I am perfectly willing to be humiliated again and be called whatever name he wants to call me this time. If we suffer shame for the name of Jesus then we are blessed. I just never thought that the persecution would come from a brother in Christ!
This was very well done Cheryl. Not only sticking to Scripture and proper hermeneutics, but using the noggin God gave you as well. I’d like to add some thoughts when I have time.
I’d also like your permission to print this out and save it to my computer for further study. And perhaps I could have your permission to use parts of your research and conclusions when I do Bible studies on relevant areas…. always with honor to the author.
Right at the moment I’m in the middle of doing some writing…. which means praying for inspiration …. and putting together research and a study outline on the epistle to the Romans. So any prayers would be very helpful.
justa berean,
You have my permission. God bless you in your study!
Cheryl
Thank you, Cheryl for taking the time to think about my questions and consider my ponderings when you are in the heat of such a warfare as this.
Cheryl wrote:”he ties it in with “the childbearing”. It is a definite noun. What one child is tied in with salvation?”
I agree that “the childbearing” refers to Christ formed in a woman
my cross references for that are Gal 4:19-5:1 and Rev 12
Cheryl wrote: “The basic meaning of the verb sozo is to rescue from peril, to protect, keep alive. Sozo involves the preservation of life, either physical or spiritual.”
What isn’t sitting right with me is “she will be saved if THEY continue in…” So, if we take your understanding of it being a woman teaching doctrinal error, is HER salvation dependant upon THEY?
Paul uses Eve being deceived as a “type” of the church (”a chaste virgin bride”) being deceived in 2Cor 11:2-3 I considered whether 1Tim 2:14 could refer to the church, but that does not fit with the context. In context, Eve has to refer to “a woman” and not the original “Eve” because the woman “shall be saved” is future.
What if “they” in verse 15 refers back up to “women” in verses 9-10?
What if you, Cheryl; and I Charis are among those women?
What if every woman, married, single, childless or mother of all the generations since Christ who CONTINUED “in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” and “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety… [and] with good works. ” (9-10)
What if “she shall be saved” is me? I am 48 years old. I have been an evangelical Christian for some 28 years. In the past 3 years, I have grown in my relationship with God exponentially. I feel that I am being renewed in the image of my Creator in a way I have not experienced earlier in my Christian life. Christ is being formed in me (and by the way the labor of THIS childbirth is painful and intense and would be equally painful for a single childless woman- Gal 4:19)
Could that “sozo” be about me/woman/Eve being restored to HIS image? because THEY/women have continued in….
“And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge *after the image of him that created him*” (Col 3:10 )
Isn’t the female reflection of the image of God Eve? So if I- Charis- am “renewed in knowledge after the image of” my creator doesn’t that look like Eve restored?
We are looking at God’s Word, alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. What if this has been veiled until this generation? Wasn’t the truth about slavery veiled for some 1800 years?
Cheryl,
That “friendly fire” you mentioned has been one of the hardest lessons for me to learn. I can take (and have taken) outrageous insults from unbelievers without a problem, but when it comes from professing Christians it has a sting all its own. It’s like being disowned by your parents or betrayed by your siblings. We expect it from the lost but not the saved, who sometimes seem so filled with hatred that we have to strain to see any reflection of Jesus in them. But Jesus did say that our enemies would come from our own homes.
Cheryl,
What if the passage that has been (mis)used by generations to keep women silent is really one of the most powerful statements of liberty and restoration in the Bible? Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Charis,
I believe that such is the case. This is true for 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14, Eph 5-6 and 1 Tim 2-3. They are all good news for women (and men).
Charis,
You said:
Think of this woman as a new convert to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Her husband is a Christian but one who is letting her teach him that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. He isn’t correcting her or stopping her and he is bringing some of what she teaches into the congregation even though he isn’t convinced of the error. Now Paul tells Timothy to stop the source of the problem - the woman. He says that the Jehovah’s Witness will be saved if the husband leads her and walks with her in learning the truth. The husband is not the problem per se because Paul doesn’t say that “they will be saved” just that “she will be saved”. But although the husband is not part of the problem, he IS part of the solution. He is the one who will bring her into the meetings and make sure that she learns. He can encourage her to listen and he can be there with her. If the husband does nothing and doesn’t help her, the chance of success is slim. She is fully deceived just like Eve was and she needs an incentive to received correct. The husband is the key to that incentive. Therefore, Paul makes sure that her husband is encouraged to act. Also remember that both Paul and Timothy know things about the problem that we don’t. They know who the people are and what exactly the false teaching is. Paul wants Timothy to know that the husband needs to help his wife in order for her to come out of her error.
Thank you so much for telling me when things aren’t sitting right with you. That is so commendable! It is important for you to work things out so that you can understand and see things in scripture. If it doesn’t make sense it is a good thing to push for understanding.
You said:
I think we could talk about an application to this verse and that would be fine. I think we can get a good application on this passage that would apply to you and me, however do I think that this is what Paul is talking about? No. The reason is that the “she” and “they” don’t mesh. The statement above it appears that you are saying that “she” is me/you/any woman/Eve and “they” is (now I am not too sure about this one so correct me if I am wrong) women in the past? You said “have continued in” but the tense is something that is to be done at the time that Paul wrote it. That means that both “she” and “they” must do something together. “She” cannot be equal to “they”. Which one do you fit in and which one do I fit in? Are you a “she” or a “they”?
I think the application that you are making is applicable in our sanctification, however a woman’s sanctification is not different than a man’s sanctification. Paul isn’t saying that women are more lost than men or need more help to become like Christ. We as humans are all in the same boat. We are all sinners saved by grace and created for good works. Christ needs to be formed in us, but that happens as we grow and mature in him. Women in general do not need anything special for salvation (that isn’t needed by men), nor do they need to have Christ restore an authority that they lost. The bible has promised that women will be used by God in the last days in a special way in the way that men are used (he has poured out his spirit on all of us). Yes, he has drawn us to himself and it is special. I know exactly what you mean. I too have grown more in the last seven years than I have grown in the time since I became a Christian. But this 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage isn’t about you and I needing to be stopped from teaching. It is a specific word given to Timothy for a specific situation.
You also said: “Isn’t the female reflection of the image of God Eve? So if I- Charis- am “renewed in knowledge after the image of” my creator doesn’t that look like Eve restored?”
I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. When I seek to be renewed in the image of God, I look to be like Jesus, not a renewed Eve. That has never crossed my mind. Male or female - Jesus is the one who we are to emulate. Eve was the one whom the Messiah would come through, but the one we fix our eyes on is always Jesus.
Charis,
You said:
Amen! My research and documentation has proven that 1 Cor. 15:36 is one of the most powerful statements of liberty and restoration and completely refutes even today’s hierarchists. I fully agree with you and isn’t this just like our God and Savior?
I think your key reasoning is that scripture, when properly interpreted, cannot contradict other scripture. You gave two excellent examples of passages that contradict 1 Timothy 2:11-15, if that passage is interpreted as applying to all women in all places and all times. There are more examples. The explicit permission Paul grants women to prophesy and pray in church (1 Corinthians 11) comes to mind. They must certainly speak to do these things, but the interpretation we are discussing of the 1 Tim passage indicates they cannot speak. Prophesying is by nature an authoritative pronouncement, so how can Paul tell women to prophesy then tell them not to speak in authority to men? Mr. Slick will not answer this question, because he has no answer. He calls you a heretic to divert attention from the fact that he cannot defend his interpretation from scripture.
Thank you Stephen for that good comment! Yes you are right that was a key part of my argument. When I came to the passage, whatever the interpretation I would come to from the inspired words and the inspired grammar, it could not contradict any other passage of scripture. There is much that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:12 if we consider this as a prohibition against women teaching the bible with authority.
I would very much like to have a civil conversation with Matt Slick. The first time he wrote me after he received my DVDs (a year and a half ago!!) he was very condescending to me and to my work. He then asked me to go on his radio show to discuss the material in my DVDs. At that time I told him that I would not do so because he had a really bad attitude. He assured me that he treats people with respect and even atheists say that. I didn’t believe him and so I stayed away until I heard some shows where he was coming against women and I could no longer keep silent. I am not a Pastor, but I felt great sadness for those precious women who are serving God in this capacity and who are being called sinners for the work they are doing for the Lord. In addition Matt has encouraged men to go into churches and confront the women Pastors. What can I say? I see nothing of this kind of behavior in the scriptures and I believe that it is hurtful to many women - dear sisters in Christ who deserve our support and our love.
I am hoping that Matt will come on to this forum and discuss with us here and that we will treat him with respect as a brother in Christ. We can be strong, but should he show up, let us not treat him with name-calling as he then has something that he can use to condone his behavior.
Stephen said,
“I think your key reasoning is that scripture, when properly interpreted, cannot contradict other scripture.”
I addressed that in light of Cheryl’s brief exchange with Matt Slick here: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-can-women-be-pastors-part-2.html
voiceofsanity said,
‘It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.’
I hear this ‘2000 years’ argument thrown around quite a bit which btw doesn’t prove a thing. The fact that a belief has been held for any x amount of years does not make it Truth. God does not establish his Truth in such a way.
The foundational problems I see with the interpretations of ‘complementarian’ flavor are all the contradictions with other scriptures and all the inconsistencies with regard to what is claimed to be a so-called ‘plain reading’ of this 1 Tim 2 passage. The very plain and simple reading of the Greek grammar of the text under discussion actualy speaks about 1 woman and not all.
Matt’s assistant (?) Diane had posted a message on the carmradioblog that Matt does not read the posts there. Instead he has a discussion forum that he visits.
So I went there (not so simple) and Matt has posted more about his frustration with Cheryl. She has posted in response. Nothing has come up that I could see about the charge of heresy so I posted the following:
Is Cheryl a heretic?
Matt, you told Cheryl that she was a heretic. Words have various definitions as well as connotations. It doesn’t bother me at all that the two of you cant agree on exegeting this text. But can you please clarify what you mean by calling her a heretic? Is she apostate?
Thanks in advance.
I will let you know if he responds.
Thanks so much for your patience with me. I had some ideas swirling around but I have only a rudimentary greek training and rely on strong’s and the interlinear. I don’t know the conjugations of verbs and such which does impact the translation.
[quote]Cheryl wrote: ” “they” is (now I am not too sure about this one so correct me if I am wrong) women in the past? You said “have continued in” but the tense is something that is to be done at the time that Paul wrote it. That means that both “she” and “they” must do something together.”[/quote]
What if the “she” is Eve/me/woman and the “they” who continue in faith….. are women future to Paul? (which would be faithful women of the past to me- in 2007)
I think your assumption and proof Paul is addressing a problem contemporary to himself and Timothy is a valid assumption. But I wonder if there is another “level” to the scripture here (as there is with much of OT prophecy)? IOW it is personal, it applies to ME too, not just the people back then who were contempories of Paul and Timothy?
Another possibility which I wondered about is this:
Gune can be translated “wife”
THEY- the husband and wife?
My rendering:
Let the wife learn in quietness with all subjection.
I don’t permit a wife to continuously teach nor usurp authority over the husband, but to be in quietness.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve
And Adam was not deceived, but the wife being deceived has made/birthed a breach/transgression. She will be saved/made whole/restored now by means of begetting/birthing the child if THEY (husband and wife?) continue in fidelity and love and holiness with sobriety.
Since it is “she” who is made whole (not “they”) perhaps saved/made whole refers to a restoration of a womanly character, reputation, role. No longer held in contempt as “deceived” but “discerning”. Her pre-transgression and pre-curse dominion/authority and position in marriage restored. Like a reversal of the curse upon Eve
This seems to be some parallel preaching by Paul:
Gal 4:19 ¶ My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Perhaps the child-bearing in 1Tim is the child of promise rather than the child of the bondwoman? It is the woman moving from life under the law, in the Old Covenant to life under the promise, to freedom under the New Covenant.. She moves from “one born after the flesh” to “one born after the spirit”. That would mean the possibility is there for ALL women, married, single, childless
I feel as though I lived under the law! I believed what the teachers, preachers, books, translators, commentators said about women being silent, restricted, easily deceived. Their news was not good news to me, it spoke death over me. And I quenched the witness of the Spirit within which cried out at the bondage and yearned for life and freedom. I was a baby Christian for 25 years, never really growing up and learning to walk in the Spirit, still in bondage, living under the fles