Browsed by
Category: 1 Timothy 2

What "law" does Satan agree with?

What "law" does Satan agree with?

Comments 3 comments

I should call this post Part Four of “Does God have one unique law?” but instead I chose to make it a “unique” post of its own. Let me ask you, do you believe that there are any laws of God that Satan agrees with? Apparently he is in full agreement with the “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men.

Let’s see how this works itself out:

Satan loves it when men and women teach false doctrine, but he hates it when anyone teaches correct biblical doctrine because the teaching of correct biblical doctrine thwarts his purpose to infiltrate the church with false doctrine. The teaching of correct biblical doctrine immunizes Christians from error. It also opens their eyes to the deception that lies within satanic doctrines. Does Satan like that? Absolutely not! Satan does not want his lies exposed and he fights long and hard to stop the teaching of true doctrine.

Because Satan hates true doctrine, he of necessity loves it when godly Christian women are forbidden to teach correct biblical doctrine. So here again we have a unique “law” of God. It is the only “law” of God that Satan agrees with. Is this really God’s law that Satan agrees with or is it instead a doctrine of men posing as God’s law? We can see the truth when we put 1 Timothy 2:12 back into its context within the letter it was written in. Paul wrote Timothy a personal letter reminding him that he was left behind in Ephesus to stop the false doctrine and false teachers that were plaguing the church (1 Timothy 1:3). The prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 is meant to be understood within the context of false teachers and false doctrine. It cannot be a universal prohibition. Why? Because it would make God the author of a unique “law” that stands in stark contrast to all of God’s other laws. God is not a God of contradiction or of confusion.

Read more about Does God have one unique law part one, part two, part three.

The case of the battling proof texts Part Two

The case of the battling proof texts Part Two

Comments 2 comments

In part one, we discussed the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself so when a complementarian has a “proof text” that is used to prove that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men, they must also deal with the apparent contradictions of this view. Here are some of the contradictions that need to be answered:

1. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the only verse in the Bible that seems to suggest that women are not allowed to teach men. Since Paul commended the Bereans for checking his doctrine by the measuring stick of the Old Testament, what Old Testament scripture would they have turned to that confirmed the prohibition disallowing women from teaching the bible to men?

2. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal prohibition, why would Paul word God’s universal law with the words “I do not allow”? Where else did God ever give a universal prohibition with the words of a man saying “I (the man) do not allow”?

3. If women are said to be more susceptible to deception than men, why are women allowed to teach other women (who by their nature would also be susceptible to deception) and young children (who by their age would also be susceptible to deception)? Why would they only be stopped from teaching men (who would be the very ones who would be able to correct them if men are the ones who are not susceptible to deception)?

4. Since Paul’s concern in leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus was to stop the false teachers, what reason did Paul give to stop godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men? Why would Paul have not mentioned in chapter one that he left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers and the women from teaching men?

5. If God does not want the teaching gifts of women to be used for the benefit of men, then doesn’t this make women’s teaching inferior to men’s teaching? How can a woman’s gifts be equal to a man’s gifts if he cannot benefit from her spiritual gifts?

6. If a group of men are not allowed to be taught by a woman, why is a single man allowed to be taught by a woman? Can you explain why Paul’s prohibition stopping “a woman” from teaching “a man” is not applicable for a single woman teaching a single man?

7. In Acts 18:26 Priscilla is said to have taught Apollos and corrected his doctrine. What scripture explains why Priscilla was allowed to teach Apollos? Was the universal prohibition to stop women from teaching men given before Priscilla taught Apollos or after she taught him?

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 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?

Does God have one unique law? Part One

Does God have one unique law? Part One

Comments 4 comments

If complementarians are right in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, then God must have one completely unique law. This “law” forbidding women from teaching the bible to men is not like any other law in the bible.

All of God’s laws have several things in common. Every law is able to be traced back to its origin in the Old Testament.

All prohibitions that are God’s law written in the New Testament are traceable back to the Old Testament law.

But it is an odd thing about the law about women not teaching men-

 

It cannot be traced back to the Old Testament. There is no connection there at all! Now isn’t that odd? The 1 Timothy 2 “prohibition” about stopping women from teaching the bible to men is a unique law, the only”law” that cannot be traced back to the Old Testament!

Now because this “law” is untraceable back to the Old Testament, it cannot be tested. When Paul was teaching the Bereans, he commended them for testing everything that he taught them. What did they test his teachings by? In Acts 17:11 it says:

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

 

So where would the Bereans have tested out this new law from scripture? There is no scripture at all in the Old Testament that confirms that women are not to teach the bible to men!

What other options do we have to interpret 1 Timothy 2:12? We can interpret it in context as a prohibition against a false teacher teaching false teaching, (Paul had already told Timothy he left him in Ephesus to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrines – 1 Timothy 1:3). If we used that interpretation, then we can find plenty of verses to confirm this prohibition from the Old Testament.

 

 

This interpretation fits perfectly with the Old Testament law.

In part two of “Does God have one unique law?” we will discuss another way that complementarians have made 1 Timothy 2:12 into a unique law that is not able to be tested by scripture. Click here to go to part two.

Godly women need to repent?

Godly women need to repent?

Comments 2 comments

My heart goes out to Pastors who are so engrained in tradition that they can easily justify sending godly women to hell. This past weekend I spoke with a Pastor from a denomination that does not believe that women are allowed to teach the bible to men. I asked him several questions regarding his view and his answers were very eye-opening to me.

1. I asked him if there was a law that forbid godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men and he said yes. (Yet every law of God comes from God alone and is never put into the words of a man saying “I do not allow”. God’s laws are clear, understandable, enforceable and they always have a second or third witness because God’s law are always repeated in scripture.)
2. I asked him if disobeying that “law” is sinning against God and he answered yes.

3. I asked him if I teach the bible to men and then do not repent of this sin before I die will I go to hell. He said yes.

Think about this – I will go to hell for teaching correct biblical doctrine! This has nothing to do immorality or a hatred of God. This has everything to do with operating in my God-given gifts. Yet this tradition says that I will go to hell for refusing to kick men out of my bible studies. Otherwise I must act in a prejudicial way towards my dear brothers in Christ so that God doesn’t send me to hell. How Satan must laugh at the church when our traditions have become a cause of separating brothers and sisters in Christ. Women have so much to give to the body of Christ and it is our desire to be allowed to share this knowledge with our brothers.

Audio talk now available online

Audio talk now available online

Comments 5 comments

On October 20, 2006 I gave a talk on the women’s issue at a convention of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses. The talk was roughly based on questions that I had received from a Pastor who had watched my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” He had asked me some questions that were not covered by the hard passages on women from WIM. In my talk I answer the challenges against women teaching the bible to men that the Watchtower makes as well as the challenges from some Christian pastors. You can download the audio file at Jehovah’s Women on Trial mp3 file or play a streaming version at Jehovah’s Women on Trial mp3 streaming version.

Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?

Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?

Comments 12 comments

Q: Isn’t there a law in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that forbids women from teaching the Bible to men? Why are you disregarding this law?

A: There are many who take 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men and therefore forbids them from ministering in the church using their God-given gifts. However we need to test this “prohibition” to see if it is a situation in the Ephesian church (a local situation) that Paul is stopping or if it is a law that Paul is establishing for the body of Christ. Up until 1 Timothy 2 was written, there was not even one scripture that says that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men. Is Paul constructing a new law for the church? Well, let’s test that. …

Read More Read More

Doesn't 1 Timothy 1:3 list only males as false teachers?

Doesn't 1 Timothy 1:3 list only males as false teachers?

Comments 3 comments

Q: In WIM you say that 1 Timothy 1:3 “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” means people male or female. However isn’t the technical grammar of “some” as singular masculine?

A: This is an excellent question and I am glad that you asked this. Although 1 Timothy 1:3 has a generic meaning of male or female, the fine points of the grammar show that the Greek is singular masculine. However this grammar does not exclude females. …

Read More Read More

Isn't it a sin for a woman to teach men?

Isn't it a sin for a woman to teach men?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: Doesn’t Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 for women not to teach men show that to disobey this command is a sin?

A: That’s a great question. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we need to determine what the command is and who the command is to. To determine these two things, we refer you back to the section on 1 Timothy 2:12 in the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Now to the question about sin. If one interprets this passage as meaning that all women are not allowed to teach the bible to men, then one would have a very serious dilemma about the charge of sin in this passage. …

Read More Read More

Isn't "a woman" from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is "generic woman"?

Isn't "a woman" from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is "generic woman"?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: You say that “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11 & 12 is the same terminology as Paul calling “a man” living in sin in 1 Corinthians 5. Wouldn’t you have to admit that the normal grammatical reading in 1 Corinthians 5 which says that Paul is talking about a particular man, not “all men”, is clearer there than in the passage in 1 Timothy 2 talking about “a woman” not meaning “all women”?

A: Absolutely, yes, I agree. That is why the 1 Corinthian 5 passage is not considered a difficult passage. 1 Timothy 2 has many difficult elements and it has been considered a difficult passage throughout church history. …

Read More Read More

Would your arguments have strength without 1 Timothy 2:15?

Would your arguments have strength without 1 Timothy 2:15?

Comments 0 Comment

Q: It also seems that 1 Timothy 2:15 is crucial for your interpretation. The word ‘she’ is a definite point in your favor. However, without this verse (being that it’s very difficult historically) do you think you’d have the strength in your argument as you do now?

A: Yes, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very strong point in our argument. It is very important because Paul draws all his conclusions that he has systematically defended in the previous verses, and ties them all together in this one verse. Many Pastors will be blunt and say that they have no idea why Paul put this verse in the passage. …

Read More Read More