Browsed by
Month: December 2006

Slavery still an issue today – so says The Wilderness Crier

Slavery still an issue today – so says The Wilderness Crier

Comments 0 Comment

I came across an excellent post written very tongue-in-cheek about the issue of slavery using all of the standard arguments against women teaching the bible to men. It is worth the read and the link is here. My mouth just dropped open as I first read it thinking that he was serious. But as I read I recognized all of the old arguments that I have heard about stopping women from ministering from the bible in the presence of men.

I will be back posting again in a few days after taking a few days off to recover from the very busy Christmas season. I wish everyone a very wonderful new year and God’s richest blessings!

The case of the battling proof texts, Part One

The case of the battling proof texts, Part One

Comments 2 comments

One of the things that bugs me when Christians have discussions about the women’s issue is the point when they are at loggerheads regarding “proof texts”. One person says they have their “proof text” scripture and so they are not willing to listen to what the other person has to say. The other person also has their “proof texts” and also isn’t willing to budge. However proof texting is simply not good enough. While you may have one verse that seems to agree with you, you also need to deal with the texts that don’t agree with you. This is the point where many people give up. They hold onto their proof text and stubbornly refuse to look outside of their already made-up mindset.

So how do we handle the situation when we come up against someone who is holding onto a wrong interpretation because of their “proof text”? What we need to do is to look carefully at their proof text and examine it within its entire context. That entire context may be broader than the chapter it is in and may include the entire book of the Bible that it is included in. Why is this important? It is important because if we do battle with our “proof texts” we are in essence saying that the Bible contradicts itself.  Do you believe that? I don’t. So now here comes the challenge – instead of retreating to your corner with your proof text, how about proving that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself?

There are three things that one must arm oneself with when looking at the opposition’s “proof text”.

1. A good Greek/Hebrew dictionary that can help you look up the words in the “proof text” to see if the words mean what the challenger says they mean.

2. A willingness to dig into the larger context to see if the challenger’s interpretation of their “proof text” is consistent with the meaning of the complete context.

3. Most important of all, pray for wisdom and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to the correct understanding so that you will know what God’s will is.

While I was researching the women’s issue, I found that most of the proof for women being allowed to teach the Bible to men was done through looking at Biblical examples of women who were in leadership positions or who were called to give out God’s word through prophecy or through judging the nation. There were also a lot of sound arguments given for why God uses women in ministry and why women shouldn’t be silenced from giving out God’s word to people today. Those were very good reasons, but I found there wasn’t as much work put into some of the hard passages that seem to forbid women from ministering. Some people just said that Paul was a misogynist, or he changed his mind later, or we should just ignore these passages as they have no meaning for today or that these passages were not truly scripture. I found that unsatisfying because I believe that each word, each piece of grammar and each passage is God breathed and is in the Bible for a reason. So I set out to find out what each disputed passage meant in its context that would allow no word or piece of grammar to be disregarded. My research was made into a script and then into a DVD series called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?”

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.

So does the Bible contradict itself? Absolutely not! Next time we will discuss some key questions from the scriptures that complementarians need to answer instead of just retreating to their “proof text” corners.

Why was Adam's sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

Why was Adam's sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

Comments 16 comments

While we have seen from part one that Adam’s sin was said to have been a deliberate transgression of the covenant and as a result it was a treacherous act against God (Hosea 6:7) where does that leave the seriousness of Eve’s sin?

God has made a dividing line between those sins which come from a deliberate defiance against God and those sins which are done unintentionally. Numbers 15:22, 27, 30, 31 says:

‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses… Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering… But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’

If one sins unintentionally, it is still a sin, but there is provision given for grace to cover this sin. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve was deceived and fell into sin unintentionally through that deception.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Did Eve experience God’s grace along with his justice? Paul alludes to this in 1 Timothy 1 & 2 as he talks about those who were fully deceived but who received God’s grace in the midst of their ignorance. In 1 Timothy 1:13, 14 Paul says:

“even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.”

In these verses Paul ties in the mercy he received from Jesus with his ignorance so that the one who acted in ignorance was eligible to receive mercy.

Another example of ignorance where a person finds mercy from God is in 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul says Eve fell into sin but because of her deception she found mercy when God promised that the Messiah would come through the seed of the woman. Genesis 3:15 says:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Satan’s tactic was to deceive the woman, but by that very act, Satan inadvertently opened the door to mankind’s receiving mercy through the seed of the woman. God did not charge the woman with treacherous rebellion as he did Adam, (Hosea 6:7) but because she had been deceived and had sinned ignorantly in her deception, God had the right to bring the Messiah into the world through her lineage.

What was meant by Satan to bring all of mankind into Satan’s own rebellion was turned around by God and was used as the means to destroy Satan. It was through the woman whom Satan deceived, that God was able to bring the sinless Messiah into the world and that perfect, sinless Messiah would in turn crush the head of Satan. The promise was made to the woman and not to the man because she was the one who received mercy.


Adam on the other hand was not deceived and since his sin was a willful sin, his guilt remained on his bloodline. Adam was therefore the only one who brought sin into this world.

To understand more about the necessity of a kinsman redeemer who was born without inherited sin, click here to read the post called Adam as head of the family.

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part One

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part One

Comments 2 comments

While some believe that Adam was the representative head of the human race and merely brought sin into the world because he was “head” (i.e. some say he was the covenantal head of humanity) the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin was more serious than Eve’s and it was the seriousness of his sin that brought humanity along with him into inherited sin.

Before we consider the seriousness of Adam’s sin, let’s make sure it was only Adam who brought sin into the world.

Romans 5:18, NASB says:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men

Who was the one who committed this one transgression? Romans 5:14, 15 NASB:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

So it is clear that Adam alone brought sin into the world. But what is the “likeness of the transgression of Adam”? First of all let’s understand that it is not the “headship” of Adam that brought sin into the world but the “transgression” of Adam. Romans 5:15 does not say “For if by the headship of the one the many died” but “For if by the transgression of the one the many died”

Why was Adam’s transgression so serious? Hosea 6:7 says:

But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

So Adam willfully transgressed God’s covenant and by sinning in this way he dealt treacherously against God. What does scripture say about those who sin defiantly against God? Numbers 15:30, 31:

‘But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.'”

Adam broke God’s commandment in a willful way because the scripture says Adam was not deceived by the serpent’s lies (1 Timothy 2:13). Because Adam sinned and broke God’s covenant by disobeying God’s prohibition, scripture says that his guilt was on him. And since we were “in” Adam when he sinned, his sin was passed on to us by inheritance.

But what about Eve? Why was her sin not judged as strongly as the sin of Adam? Why did Eve not bring sin into the world? This discussion will continue in part two of “Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve?”

Can only men judge right from wrong in the church?

Can only men judge right from wrong in the church?

Comments 1 comment

I read with interest Wayne Grudem’s claim that 1 Cor. 14:34 means that women are to “keep silent”regarding weighing of the oral prophecies in the assembly. While I respect Mr. Grudem as a brother in Christ, I am wondering how he can separate women from the responsibility of judging when scripture says that we all have the responsibility to judge. Judging is not a male activity, but an activity of the mature Christian. Paul had already told the Corinthian church that the saints will judge the world. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says:

1 Cor. 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?

Paul said that the saints will not only judge the world, but we will judge angels! 1 Corinthians 6:3 says:

1 Cor. 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

This is not a male matter of judging, but an activity of the saints. If women are also going to judge the world and the angels, shouldn’t they be allowed to judge matters in the church relating to truth and error and the bible? Nowhere in scripture does it say that women are not allowed to judge. In fact God himself set Deborah up as a judge in the Old Testament. Where is there any law in scripture that forbids women from judging truth from error in the congregation? There is none!

In 1 Cor. 14:29 it does not say that there is a responsibility for males alone to judge. Instead it is the congregation who must learn to be mature and judge between truth and error. “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.”

I respectfully say that Mr. Grudem may be fulfilling 1 Cor. 12:21 “And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” Is there really no need of women to be mature and judge between truth and error in the body of Christ? Can men do this *alone* and they don’t need women? I don’t think we have a right to tell women that they cannot participate in the mature responsibility of the entire body to judge prophesy. Women must be allowed to be mature and to judge right from wrong. If Paul really was claiming that women were not allowed to judge prophesy, then he was contradicting himself when he pushed the saints on to maturity by telling them that judgment is a Christian thing that we will all be required to do. Indeed, judging in a mature and honorable way is not as Mr. Grudem claims only a male activity – it is an activity that is to be practiced by all mature members of the body of Christ – even women!

Why was Adam not deceived?

Why was Adam not deceived?

Comments 32 comments

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.

The discussion has taken on a question of whether animals could have been created after Adam if the old earth view is considered or if only a young earth model could fit the context. I will be posting several comments that came in under the 1 Timothy 2 passage and placing them under this post so that they can be answered here. I will then take each question and comment on them as time permits in my schedule.

Does God have one unique law? Part Three

Does God have one unique law? Part Three

Comments 9 comments

In this part three of “Does God have one unique law?” we will be discussing the last set of circumstances that set apart the “law” that complementarians say God made that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. It is our desire to point out that all of these unique circumstances that set apart this “law” as something completely unique from all of God’s other laws should cause us to see “red flags” regarding making 1 Timothy 2:12 a universal law.

If we look at the entire context of 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 2 we are able to clearly see a context of deception and false teachers that Timothy was left behind in Ephesus to deal with, therefore we should be very cautious in using one verse taken out of its context to condemn all godly Christian women who obey God by using their gift of teaching to include men.

In the last two articles where we have been discussing this unique “law”, we have discovered that God has certain characteristics concerning his laws that are common to all of God’s laws.

1. All of God’s laws are able to be traced back to the Old Testament to find their roots. Without the ability to trace a law back to the Old Testament, the Bereans would have not been able to test all things by God’s Word. Since the early Christians only had the Old Testament available to them and since Paul commended the Bereans for testing Paul’s teachings and commandments by the Old Testament, if Paul had created a brand new law that wasn’t able to be tested, then there was a unique “law” that had the unique ability to be the only “law” that couldn’t be tested by God’s Word at the time of the early church.

2. All of God’s laws are repeated in scripture so that none of them is ever stated only once. Paul said that repetition is for our safety and we agree that the repetition of God’s laws make his commands clear and understandable and all of God’s laws are verifiable by a second witness.

3. None of God’s laws calls good works as evil. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then it is the only “law” of God that calls a good work (teaching the bible) as an evil thing.

Today we will add the last part concerning the uniqueness of this “law”.

4. All of God’s laws require God Himself commanding mankind. The unique “law” of 1 Timothy 2:12 has a man commanding.

While we believe that Paul was an Apostle called of God to speak to the church and give out God’s inspired words, there were times that Paul gave his own commands for a specific situation in the church. In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul says:

1 Cor. 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

Yet God’s word says that it is not good for man to be alone. Why did Paul say it was good? In 1 Corinthians 7:26, Paul says:

1 Cor. 7:26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

Paul said that it was good for one to remain unmarried because the church was going through much persecution and taking on additional family responsibilities would have been hard during that distressful time for believers.

It is also clear that Paul’s own commands are not universal but for a specific situation. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:27:

1 Cor. 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

We ask is it a universal command that one is not allowed to be married if they are in an unmarried position? No, of course not. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:28:

1 Cor. 7:28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

Paul’s command to not seek a wife was a command by him for a specific time and a specific situation. It is very clear that not all of Paul’s commands are universal laws. Here is another example. In 1 Corinthians 7:20 Paul commands:

1 Cor. 7:20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Is this God’s universal law? No it isn’t possible that this is a universal law. If a man is a slave when he is saved, is he forbidden to become a free man? No, not at all for Paul also said in verse 21:

1 Cor. 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.

What about if a man is uncircumcised when he is saved? Is it a universal law that he is forbidden to be circumcised? Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 7:18:

1 Cor. 7:18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

Is this a universal law that Paul has commanded? No it isn’t. If it was, then Paul broke the universal law of God because Paul had Timothy circumcised. In Acts 16:3 it says about Timothy:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

If it was a universal law that one was to remain as they were when they were saved and an uncircumcised man was not allowed to become circumcised, then Paul broke that universal law by circumcising Timothy. However from the context we can see why Timothy was circumcised. Paul wanted to minister to the Jewish people and when he picked Timothy to work with him, he knew that Timothy would be rejected because he was uncircumcised. Paul circumcised Timothy so that the gospel would not be hindered by the rejection of Timothy by the Jews. Paul’s command was a command by him for a specific time but it was not a universal law by God.

Now let’s look at another example to see how Paul differentiates his commands from the commands from God. In 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, Paul commands:

1 Cor. 7:10, 11 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Do you see a difference here? Paul is saying that this command is from “the Lord”.

Now let us look again at what has been said by complementarians to be a universal “law” in 1 Timothy 2:12:

1 Tim. 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Do you see here that Paul is saying “I do not allow”? Is this a universal prohibition or it is a command by Paul for a specific situation in Ephesus? If it is a universal prohibition, then it is the ONLY prohibition that is framed with the words of a man instead of the command from God. Now isn’t that odd? Why would God break all of his consistent ways of giving universal laws with this one “unique law”? Why would Paul not verify in any other verse that this command was God’s command? Why did Paul not say that “God does not allow” or “I received this from the Lord, and He does not allow”? Paul has already told us that some things he says are his own commands. Let’s look to see how the three verses below are similar:

1 Cor. 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

1 Cor. 7:20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

1 Tim. 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

All three are commands by Paul but they are not universal commands by God. All three are for specific situations and specific times.

Now for those who still believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal law that forbids all godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, I challenge you to find another universal law by God that is framed in the words of a man saying “I do not allow”. You won’t find it. Why? Because all of God’s laws without exception have the last point in common – all of them are given by God and they are clear that they come from God Himself!

I challenge you today to go back to the list of 4 things from the beginning of this post that shows what all of God’s commands have in common and to think seriously about 1 Timothy 2:12. Does God have a unique “law” where only one “law” of His does not have to follow His set pattern? That is not safe and it is not for our benefit.

If God has a unique “law” that does not follow his set pattern of all other laws, then this is one law that is not safe. Rather my beloved, let us take Paul’s words and understand that Paul in context, was commanding a prohibition for a specific situation regarding deception and a deceived teacher. The grammar once again (I do not allow) is the key for us to properly interpret this passage.

Let me end this series of posts with the words of Paul in Philippians 3:1

Phil. 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

All of God’s laws are repeated as a safeguard for the church. There is no other command in any part of the bible that even hints at a prohibition against godly Christian women forbidden from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This is not a universal law then because it fails the test of all of God’s universal laws.

Click here to read Part Two or here to read Part One of “Does God have one unique law?”

Does God have one unique law? Part Two

Does God have one unique law? Part Two

Comments 12 comments

To read part one of Does God have one unique law, click here.

Complementarians have stated that God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This law, they say, is revealed in 1 Timothy 2:12. Since we saw in part one that this law is foreign to the Old Testament, let’s have a look at the New Testament to see if there is a second witness to this law.

Paul stated that repetition is for our safety. Philippians 3:1 says:

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

Paul knew the importance of repetition. Every time doctrine is repeated and every time a prohibition is restated, we have a verification of the facts. Cults often take one scripture out of context and twist the meaning. When a fact is repeated, it is less likely that the fact can be disregarded or disputed. Repetition is indeed necessary for our safety.

So since we know that the “law” that forbids godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men is not stated in the Old Testament and would not have been a tutor for the women in the early church, is there a repetition of this “law” in the New Testament anywhere? No there is not. Now isn’t that odd? Every single “law” in the bible is verified by a second witness, except for this one. For more discussion on the necessity of having a second witness click here.

Now let’s look further at this unique “law”. Earlier in the passage 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 Paul says that good works are proper for women claiming godliness:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

So what kind of good works are proper for women? Would it be a good work for women to teach correct biblical doctrine? According to complementarians the answer is “yes” and “no”. The answer is “no” if she teaches correct biblical doctrine to men. Now this rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12, makes this “law” a unique one among all of God’s laws. This interpretation forces the teaching of God’s word to be considered an evil thing depending on who the bible is taught to or who does the teaching. Nowhere else in scripture is the godly work of teaching scripture represented as an evil thing depending on who does the work.

Let’s see it in another way –

  1. The Bible says thou shalt not commit adultery, therefore adultery is evil.
  2. The Bible says thou shalt not lie, therefore lying is evil.
  3. 1 Timothy 2:12 says women shalt not teach the bible to men, therefore teaching the bible to men is evil.

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 of God’s word to be an evil act, click here to read What does 1 Timothy 2:11 – 15 mean?

In this series we have examined 3 things that refute the complementarian argument that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. In summary let’s list these three things:

1. There is no corresponding law in the Old Testament that forbids women from teaching the bible to men therefore if the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a general law for all women, then it is a law that has no Old Testament backing.

2. There is no second witness that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. All of God’s prohibitions have a second witness. Since this “law” against women teaching the bible does not have a second witness, it is immediately a “red flag” that stands out to alert us to the fact that we have misunderstood the passage making it a general prohibition instead of a specific prohibition regarding a problem situation in the church in Ephesus.

3. There is no other law that takes a godly work of teaching God’s word and makes it an evil thing merely by the one doing the work. If the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 makes the teaching of God’s word an evil thing, then this is a red flag that this passage has been misunderstood. Instead of making the teaching of God’s word an evil thing, the passage should be understood as prohibiting the teaching of false doctrine and the silencing of a false teacher.

To go to Part Three click here.

What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?

What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?

Comments 86 comments

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:

  1. In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)
  2. 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)
  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)
  4. 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)
  5. Paul names the deceivers (1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)
  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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The “she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.
  18. 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.
  19. 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).
  20. 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?