gengwall,
EXCELLENT comments and I missed the exact same words in 1 Cor. 1:12, 13. That was a slam dunk answer right from Paul’s letter. Thanks!

Grudem is going to have problems explaining how women can prophesy so that all may learn and at the same time keep silent (as the “law” says). One cannot say that the silence is only for judging prophecy. The term for silent means complete silence and a “law” dictating this silence is appealed to. Where is there a law that forbids women from judging prophecy? There is no reference in scripture to such a law.

I am out of the office this week. I will try to check in later if the relatives let me. If not, I will be back on line next week.

Greg,
Thanks for your comments. I think that complementarians fear equal submission because they make submission out to be obedience. Instead of biblical mutual submission, they fear that men will be under the thumb of their wives having to obey their every command. Sometime in the future I plan on putting up a post on what biblical submission is and isn’t. It is time we clear the air and define submission.

Lin,

There would have been male pride without sin?

I am sure it would have been called something else before sin. Sin distorts our differences. It doesn’t create them.

Why is that considered nurturing? Why not loyalty or courage? Or just plain Boldness for their Messiah?

Or perhaps we can say that nurturing is part of how women’s loyalty is shown. However we describe it, we see subtle (or not-so-subtle) differences of what separates the sexes.

I think Truthseeker has it right. We are treading on dangerous grounds that we cannot prove ingrained before the fall.

I do not see how it can be dangerous if we are merely commenting on the differences we see. The focus is on understanding one another not forcing anyone to comply to our own definition.

Peter shows how there are both differences in the genders and complete equality in spirit. He said:

1 Peter 3:7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

I don’t think that we could tell Peter that he is on dangerous territory telling husbands to live with their wives in an understanding way **because she is a woman**. Peter emphasized her differences for one reason only – to encourage men to work to understand their wives and not treat them as if they are just like men. Then after Peter has emphasized her difference and the careful way that men need to treat their women because **she is a woman** he turns around and shows that women are absolutely and completely equal with men in the spiritual realm as equal heirs. This is what I call the proof text for different yet equal. I think the comps have it somewhat backwards when they say equal but different. It shouldn’t be a “but” but a “yet”. Different yet equal.

In the natural I want my husband to treat me as different (and special) but in the spiritual I want my husband to treat me as equal. I absolutely do not believe that Peter got it wrong. I do not believe that Paul would have chided Peter for the statement “because she is a woman” and told him that he is on dangerous territory. To me the dangerous territory is not understanding the subtle differences that God made in the sexes. It is not a spiritual danger but a danger of misunderstanding. The true spiritual danger is that if men do not treat their wives as spiritual equals, their prayers will be hindered. That is quite a warning to men to wake up and figure this one out.

Women took their sinful place after the fall to be dominated in Patriarchy. And this place has been passed down over thousands of years through expectations for women. They characteristics have been taught and caught.

That is true. But I am not talking about these sinful characteristics. I am talking about what a woman is naturally even within groups of women. We are what we are. What I am trying to do is affirm our differences while dispelling the myth of inequality.

I think there is also a danger in being afraid of comps accusing us of teaching unisex so we buy into some of their teaching on non physical character traits for men and women. As in women being natural nurterers. (Breastfeeding is a great example of this as it comes very hard for some women and is even impossible for some)

It is not an issue of fear. It is an issue of having the egalitarian position misunderstood and the hindrances that block our message from being heard. Also the issue of nurturing I am speaking about is a characteristic not connected to the physical ability to breastfeed. Watch a woman hold a baby and then watch the average man hold a baby. The difference is the characteristic that I speak about.

To claim that there are no differences spiritually between the sexes but then to claim there are vast differences in emotions, intellect, ego, pride, nurturing, etc., negates the claim there are no differences spiritually.

I didn’t say that there are vast differences in emotions or intellect. I don’t recall making any claim at all about these things. I see no connections whatsoever that would make us spiritually unequal. I believe that women are needed spiritually to bring a balance. I would need an example of how my understanding of male and female in the natural would make them spiritually unequal. I do not see it.

If there are no pink or blue characteristics, then why are we having this discussion?

People see “pink” and “blue” as removing one gender from a characteristic or from a spiritual gift. I am not advocating that people see it that way.

But, I can tell you this is not true at all that men struggle more with the ego issue. It is a folk myth. As one who consulted in hundreds of companies all over the USA, I can tell you that female pride and ego are alive and well. It is just that the METHODS for carrying out this sin are different based on what society deems is acceptable for a female to do and a man to do.

“Ego” is not a sin if it just means our self-esteem. However I have been using the term “male ego” as a way to express egotism which is sinful. Your quote above actually confirms what I am saying about the differences between male and female. Men and women have different ways of doing things especially the acting out of our sinful ways. When women undercut each other, I do not see that as an acceptable thing in our society. But I heartily agree with you that men and women act out differently. That has been my point.

Thanks tiro. I do believe that it is important to continue to make the answers known as Grudem has not withdrawn his open letter or “six questions that have never been answered”. I will be adding my own thoughts/questions to the mix in the next 5 posts as well.

If Eve had stayed in the garden then none of the other prophesies would have been made since no other human would have been born except for the Messiah. The prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus came much later. The original prophesy made in the garden was that it was the woman’s seed that would produce the Messiah. The man’s seed wasn’t involved but no other details were given. So the provision was there that Eve could have stayed in the garden and produced the Messiah alone but God knew for sure that she would leave. In fact he prophesied it by saying that she will desire her husband. It was the desire for him and Adam’s taking his rule over her that caused her to leave the garden. God knew all of these details and the rest is history.

I think we also need to be careful not to “react” to comp teaching so that we go too far the other way. It is an accusation of comps that egals teach that men and women are unisex – no difference at all. Accepting our differences and celebrating those differences is not giving into comp thinking. It is accepting that God made us spiritually equal and biologically complementary which is a wonderful and amazing thing. 1 Cor. 11:7 speaks about this as Paul says:

..the woman is the glory of man

The woman was made so that the man would be proud of her as she is his glory. He is to *glory* in her. She has an intimate connection with him, she is his flesh, yet she is also his glory. The bible never says that he is *her* glory. She is the one who brings what is missing. She was the crowning part of creation. Our differences bring both complementarity and glory to man.

Thanks truthseeker for your concern.

What comps do is take their prejudice against women and they teach a view of Eve who sinned before she ate the fruit. Their teaching is that Eve was not only deceived but she distorted the words of God even before sin entered the world and before she stretched out her hand and ate the fruit. Their teaching is flawed and their conclusions that women inherit the spiritual attribute of deception through Eve is completely foreign to the text. Their view has nothing to do with biological differences between men and women, but a *spiritual* difference between men and women.

In contrast, there is no spiritual difference between men and women taught in the scriptures. There is a biological difference shown and supported as something that is truly complementary. Women are the ones shown in scripture as the nurturers. It was the women who were there at the cross when all the men scattered. Women were the ones who were first to the tomb as they were the ones who considered that Jesus should have spices for embalming. This is a nurturing/caring trait that is found in a larger degree in women. This is what makes women biologically suited for the initial bonding process with their children. This is also what makes children generally prefer their mothers when they are hurt. God has placed within women (in general) an abundance of the characteristic of what we call “mothering”.

We also see this in the gospels when the women ministered to Jesus, with some of them supporting him out of their own finances.

The difference again between comps and egals in this area, is the comps use the differences between men and women to claim a lack of full spiritual approval for women. This is an invalid claim and unsupported by scripture. Egals like myself see a difference between men and women as a God ordained purpose for women to supply what is lacking in men alone. In this way of thinking, women are not only equal with men, but they are very much needed to provide balance and wholeness.

Does this make sense?

Stickler,
No doubt our biological differences have been distorted by the fall. However we do have biological differences. Who knows what “male pride” would have originally been like without the factor of sin. We should be able to conclude that God originally created the differences to be with outsin so whatever “male pride” looked like before sin entered the world has certainly been greatly distorted by sin now.

How can we know that what we see as typical today and in history, in people is not just “programming” and people defining themselves by culture?

Who is doing the “programming”? The world has many different cultures and we see differences between male and female in all of the cultures so there is not any one programmer.

I think that the issue here is not to deny that there are biological differences between men and women that cause them to think and act differently (generally speaking). The issue is whether these differences are cause to be prejudiced against one gender through males dictating what females may or may not do in their relationship with God and the church. I believe that the only one who can create the restrictions is God Himself. I also believe that according to God’s Word and His own practices, that God has not limited women in their usefulness nor has He given any less of His Spirit to indwell them. However it does seem like many men think that the Holy Spirit who dwells in women should be restricted from expressing Himself. I say, how dare anyone tell God what He can do?

67 Lin,

Besides the obvious biological differences, what characteristics do you see as different by Design? Where are they listed?

I don’t see any characteristic as belonging just to one gender. What I do see is some things belonging less to one gender than the other gender and some things as generally belonging more to one gender than the other.

An out-front ego seems to be generally more of a male characteristic than female. Barak seemed to be an exception to the rule when he trusted God enough to want God’s prophet-leader to go into battle with him. He didn’t seem to care that he would not receive the honor from the battle.

In some ways having less of an ego than is generally in the male population makes a woman a good all around leader.

We simply do not know if hormones are a result of the fall or not.

We do know that hormones were there before the fall. God told Adam and Eve to procreate before the fall and this is impossible without hormones. Also when God said to Eve after the fall that he would greatly increase her child bearing, he did not add hormones but he greatly changed the original female child bearing level. What was there originally in the beginning was just changed so that humanity would continue on in enough numbers that the dying process would not wipe out mankind.

And if they were and affect every area of our life then they would have to affect us spiritually, too.

Our spirits do not have organs to be affected by hormones. God is not male or female as he does not have body parts. Our spirits are neither male nor female as they also do not have male or female “parts” and our physical hormones cannot and do not touch our spirits.

For example, Driscoll thinks this is why women are more easily deceived than men. They can’t help it.

Driscoll is dead wrong. He has misunderstood the scriptures and he is teaching error in this area.

How? By what non biological characteristic? I keep seeing this statement but no one has listed the “Different by Design’ characteristics between males and females that are non biological?

I do not believe that there are non-biological differences. It is only our bodies and our brains (which are affected by hormones) which are different. Our spirits are not different. I cannot give you non-biological differences because I don’t believe that these kinds of differences exist.

We keep talking about something we refuse to define. And the reason is that if we try to define it, we find it is not universal at all.

We can discuss generalities but not all generalities fit every person. Most women are “designed” to be nurturers. They come by it naturally. Men can also be nurturers but most will not come by it naturally and most will never excel in this area as their female counterparts do.

And we argue that Deborah proves that women not being allowed to rule is the exception that proves there is no rule.

I agree that leadership is not an area that is against the design that God created in women. If it was then God would have said so. Not only would women not have any leadership qualities, but God would have forbidden them to use these gifts in the church. However Paul encouraged all to participate with their gifts in the body (1 Cor. 14) and he said that anyone may aspire to the work of an overseer (1 Timothy 3:1). Paul certainly did not contradict God’s word. God’s word does not limit women in their service to the body of Christ.

How? Outside of biological differences, what do you mean? Now, if you mean that HUMANS are different, I totally agree.

I am speaking about biological differences that influence who we are and the special way that God can use us because we bring a balance. A group of gifted male servants is wonderful but they are missing something without the females working alongside them. Jesus had only 12 male apostles during his lifetime but after he died, the apostles were ministered to by women and women worked alongside them as equal heirs of God just as the OT predicted. This shows that change in our thinking that is prejudiced against women may be slow but eventually the church has to come to recognize not only the value of women, but that women are necessary for true balance in the servanthood of the church.

But I am wondering outside of biological differences how we can attach pink and blue to all other characteristics of emotions, intellect, reasoning, etc? What are the pink and blue differences outside of the biological ones?

There aren’t any pink or blue characteristics. The differences are biological ones where some characteristics are stronger in one gender and some are just different so that women add a strength to leadership and a balance. The problem with complementarians is that they see “different” as inferior. “Different” is not inferior. Our differences can be celebrated because we are needed. One day I believe that we will not only be needed but wanted.

Can you define this way of thinking? Is it universal for all women? If not, then how can it be a difference by design?

It isn’t universal for women, but it is from a woman’s perspective. For example I have been able to see things in Genesis because I can see in the text things that men don’t normally pay attention to because they are not women. When I read that Eve gave a slightly different version of God’s command, I do not read that the woman got the command wrong. I read that she gave the perspective that God gave to both of them, but that was a focus to her – the command not to even touch the fruit. While a male readily discounts the woman’s testimony, I give Eve credit for telling the truth. As a woman I understand that she is emphasizing a different part of the prohibition. As a woman I will not attribute sin to Eve just because she is a woman, unless the text proves that she sinned before sin entered the world.

Is compassion a pink or blue characteristic?
Is pride a pink or blue characteristic?

There are no pink or blue characteristics. However once again I will emphasize that men and women typically have more or less of the characteristic by gender. To say “Male pride” one gets the picture. Males struggle with an ego issue far more than females do on the average. Also compassion is far more naturally high in a female than in a male. I ran a support group for 16 years for former Jehovah’s Witnesses. This required a great deal of patience and specific compassion. The reason I ended up with this position is because the males that tried to run it to begin with would have destroyed the support group because they had a significantly less amount of patience and compassion to make it work. When they failed, they willingly handed the job over to me and I carried on for many years with great success.

I am not sure how else to explain this. It is all about a biological difference that explains why we do things differently. But aside from the outward biological differences, inside we are spirits without gender – completely equal and gender will not matter in heaven if there is indeed physical differences in heaven. We are all sons by inheritance and all are the bride of Christ by our relationship to Christ.

65 Paula,

I disagree that men and women have to be different or one wouldn’t be needed.

I don’t know but it seems to me that God said that the man alone was “not good”. Instead of creating another male he chose to create a female to fix the “not good” state. That celebrates our differences and proves that women are needed.

This very idea is what drives the Eternal Subordination of the Son movement, because they claim that hierarchy in the Trinity is required in order to distinguish the Persons.

I wouldn’t be right to compare my words about male/female in humans with the Trinity. The Trinity is not comparable to humanity and since I did a major DVD work disproving the Eternal Subordination of the Son argument, my words could not possibly be the same as the ESS argument.

The only difference in humans that’s truly **needed** is biological.

A biological difference also brings a difference to the way we think, the way we process problems, etc. Biology is a hormonal chemistry that affects our bodies quite dramatically. Women who are much like men are still very special additions given by God. We are needed as women bring balance that God intended all along.

So the presupposition of a non-biological gender-based difference is flawed because there is so much evidence to the contrary.

God-created hormones affects every areas of our lives. However where we can all agree (I hope) is that spiritually there is no difference between male and female. Inside each of us is our spirit that is neither male nor female. Hormones do not affect our spirits and our spirits should never be judged as male or female. We are equal heirs in Christ. In the natural we are a needed part of humanity since ten males together will never be as well-balanced as 9 males and 1 female. Even the addition of one female brings balance as God intended.

They read too much into the “help meet” thing, presuming a spiritual or emotional bond beyond that which any two friends could have, even though the first two humans **had** to be of opposite sex or there’d have been no other “friends” to come.

I read it as the female was necessary to bring a completeness and a balance. I see females as completely needed and that God planned it that way. When the church excludes the leadership of women to the body of Christ, they are saying that they know better than God knows. Women are not an after thought by God. We are a special thought by God as we are needed. Perhaps some egals think that I give women too much credit as special. Then perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.

There is a good reason scripture calls only the male/female sexual relationship “one flesh”: it’s about the flesh.

Hormones play a part in who we are as people past just our sexual function. My femaleness is not just about my sexual function. I see that God has given me as a gift and that I can bless men with a way of thinking that is needed. Scripture has helped me to understand that I need not fear serving and giving my best to the entire body because I am needed.

I will have to find some current studies, but those I’ve read in the past showed that while hormones affect the development of the brain, this does not result in any clear advantage in intelligence of one sex over the other, or in particular emotional or spiritual traits.

Hormones certainly do affect the development of the brain. It is not to say that women are better than men or vice versa. But they are different. And those differences are needed. Men need women. That is the bottom line. I have never said that women are more intelligent than men nor have I said that there is a specific emotional trait or spiritual trait that belongs to women. But I have said that women were created different. Different means that we can be truly complementary because we are needed.

I, for one, am very glad that God made me this way. I am glad that God made me needed. If I felt that I was no different than a male, I would likely have an inferiority complex because men tend to have a more forceful ego and that can be very intimidating. But while I am a female who is one of many who is disadvantaged in society at large because of my gender, God has freely given me gifts that are influenced by who I am as a female. I can know for sure that I am needed. God made me this way.

If any egalitarian who is female disagrees with me that they as females are special gifts to the church because God made them female, then God bless you. God can make this known to you in some other way. I won’t argue with you. But I will continue to take the place that God has prepared for me. And it is so wonderful to know that I am needed and my being a female is special.

For those of you who are different than what you see other females to be, I want you to know that you are special. You are exactly what God created you to be. You are not the same as a man. You are equal but different but you have no rules that prohibit you from functioning in the same field as the men. Different does not mean that you cannot function with freedom anywhere that God places you. It just means that you are special. You are unique and you are God’s gift to the church just the way you are.

gengwall,

Rather than explore the true meaning 1 Peter 3; rather than embrace the gender specific teacing and attempt to determine its value for men and women alike; they completely reject 1 Peter 3 and therefore ignore, or even argue against, its important lessons. Wouldn’t it serve our purpose much better if we rose above our cultural indoctrination which says that Paul and Peter preach hierarchy, and instead search out the real and deep meaning that they wish to impart to us all through their very gender specific teaching?

Thank you so much for coming to my blog and posting your comments. I see you affirming not only the worth of women but pushing us all to keep balanced. This is highly important. When one reacts against a false and hurtful doctrine, it is easy to miss the mark too. I think this is because the false interpretation has also affected us too. When we see the inspired writings of Peter and Paul we can often cringe because the inspiration has been tainted with false teaching. The temptation is to run as far away from the error as we can. And in doing so many will dismiss some things that stand out. I can always learn too as we all can. Men and women are different and this is by design. But the differences in reasoning or understanding or anything else, does not carry through into the spiritual. We are completely equal before God and we should be seen as completely equal before each other as we are not spiritual sons and daughters, but all are spiritual sons, equal heirs together in Christ.

I am going to work somewhat backwards on the comments.

60 gengwall,

I don’t think Kim or anyone else is saying that women or men have gender specific attributes in the areas of emotions, intellect, or feelings. That is, if you mean by “attributes” that either men or women are universally more or less emotional, intellectual, or feeling than the opposite sex. But we do, in general, process and react to stimuli and information in different ways, and it has everything to do with very gender specific biology (mainly hormones and brain structure).

This was well said. I do not think that anywhere here is saying that women have more feelings than men do (although men have been forced in some cultures to repress their feelings), nor that men are more intellectual than women, etc. Our differences have nothing to do with our spiritual worth except that women are needed. If women were the exact same as men, then men could say that women are not needed. The fact is that women are women and their value as women is great needed to bring balance. It matters not whether the woman is the “standard” or an exceptionally unique creation of God that is unlike most other women. She is still needed because she brings a different way of living out her gifts that men need.

It seems to me that some think that if some women have characteristics and gifts that are more common to men than to women, then for some reason they do not have as much worth in the fellowship of believers. Dare I say that perhaps they have even more worth? Perhaps we can see these women as vitally necessary to help us understand each other. This is not said to put down any ordinary woman (is there such a thing as “ordinary”?). But I think that often those who do not fit in a set mold can feel left out and unappreciated and undervalued. I do not want to do that. I want to celebrate the worth of those who are jewels who stand out amongst the crowd.

While the complementarians may reject those who do not fit their traditional comp role model, I do not think that we should go totally the opposite direction and deny any differences between men and women in the natural. The bottom line is that women are different than men and that difference is so needed and so complementary that trying to do “church” by using the gifts of men only is contrary to God’s will. God wants diversity. He made more than one color. He made more than one gender. He wants us to learn from each other and grow through the nurturing and sacrificial use of all of our gifts.

Thanks Jennifer!

Michael,
Just as poison that is eaten takes a while to get into our system passing through our systems, so too the forbidden fruit was to become an ingested poison and once it started to break down in their bodies, the results from eating the fruit were seen. I do not think that it was an instant thing just as eating poison isn’t usually an instant “death” either. Does this make sense?

I sense that there is a lot of hurt being expressed here because of past offenses that have been committed by complementarians.

I had hoped to be able to go through all the comments and correct the misunderstandings on what I meant but time has run out and my daughter and her family arrives today for a four day stay so I will be out of the loop a little while longer.

I will just give a brief comment that this isn’t about stereotypes but about generalities and things outside the generalities do not mean that a person is in sin. All the generalities do is to help us understand that there are differences between male and female and we may need to think outside of our own box in order to understand each other and to be understood. If females were the exact same as all males, then females would not be needed in order to be “complementary”. I believe very strongly that we are needed.

As individuals we definitely do not totally “fit into the box”. My husband is much more emotional than I am. I tend towards logic and I am also trying to understand and then I work hard to figure out ways to be understood. Sometimes I may come across as not having much emotion. I do have emotion. It is just that my logical mind usually gets to rent the first space in my head.

I will be back to this thread later. There are many more things to clear up. 🙂

Yippee, I think I got through them all. Bet you all are tired of seeing my name on so many posts, eh? It’s these late nights of answering the comments that has me with no competition 🙂

80 gengwall,

Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do,
whatcha gonna do when they marry you….

Oh! Truly bad!! ‘er good!!

65 Paula,

However, I know of no other instance (second witness– wink wink) where salvation from eternal wrath was referred to in terms of “the Childbirth”.

Gen 3:15 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.”

God’s promised Seed through the woman = THE childbirth, “bruise him on the head” = Jesus did this on the cross as He paid for our sin.

64 truthseeker,

She cannot logically be Eve, the ’saved’ cannot mean original salvation, so childbirth taking the meaning of ‘being raised up in the faith’ makes the most sense.

In Paul’s epistles he uses the Greek word for “saved” always to mean spiritual salvation. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:15 we would need to have good reason not to have Paul follow this consistent usage. Paul creates a term “the childbirth” which is completely unique in the entire new testament. It is a noun instead of a verb and it is definite because it has “the” before the noun.

When we look at a hard passage like this one we go from what we can know for sure to the unknown. We know that it is a particular birth that Paul is talking about. We know that it has something to do with the end result of stopping the woman from teaching. We know that the prohibition has something to do with Eve and her being deceived.

What works in this passage is the fact that Paul never stopped the teaching of the truth even if it was by unfaithful teachers.

Php 1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will;
Php 1:16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel;
Php 1:17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment.
Php 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,

And because the reason the prohibition was given was due to the deception of Eve (and her being created second), we can know that the woman was also deceived.

So we have two deceived women. One is being stopped from teaching. Paul likens her to the very first deceived woman, but Paul has hope for her salvation because the very first woman received mercy from God after being thoroughly deceived by Satan. Yet through her God promised the Messiah. THE childbearing was to come by way of the very first deceived woman. Through the deceived came the conqueror who would destroy the destroyer. Paul was also confident that this other deceived woman would also receive mercy and she would come out of her deception. She is like the prodical son who has gone away from the Father and is lost in the pigbarn of deception. But Paul is confident that through sound teaching she will come to her senses and she will have saving faith in the Messiah. Two women – two deceptions (but the same deceiver) – one childbirth Savior – two acts of mercy. Paul draws a scarlet line of saving blood from the first deceived woman through to the deceived woman that Timothy had to deal with. It is an ending of hope and faith in Christ that started with a prohibition. Indeed, Paul says, she WILL be saved….IF…

I hope this helps a little.

63 gengwall,

Even though this was a personal letter to Timothy, I doubt they enjoyed much mail privacy in those days.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit worried about mail privacy in this one since it was meant to be scripture. Although it was written personally to Timothy, the Holy Spirit meant for all of us to read it and be edified by it.

Even the way Paul leads into the section in vs. 11 seems to be kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* “you know who I’m talking about here Timothy”.

I believe that either Paul knew that he was writing scripture or else the Holy Spirit kept Paul from writing her name. It was Paul’s habit never to identify those who were in the deceived group. He did identify the deliberate deceivers.

But there simply is no other way to logically and accurately view the grammer of vs. 14 than to see that a specific woman is in view and it can not possibly be Eve. And there is no way to separate vss. 11 and 12 from 13-15.

Absolutely! And good job gengwall!

62 Paula,

On the other hand, maybe Paul had to write vaguely whenever the social order was the topic, since it could get him executed.

Maybe it is too late at night but I am not sure if you are kidding or not. Whatever the case, I don’t think the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to not use her name because it would get Paul executed. He used Alexander’s name and he still was living. And Alexander caused Paul a great deal of trouble.

61 gengwall,

Greek and Hebrew suck. Why couldn’t they have had specific words for husband and wife separate from those for man and woman? It would have made things so much easier.

The general rule has been that whenever you say aner and gune together where they are in relationship, then they are husband and wife. 1 Timothy 2:12 has been the one verse that translators did not do this to. Why? Cause I think they assumed that Paul followed male privilege in bible teaching.

gengwall #58,

Maybe this has all been said before and I am just dense and missed it, but it occurs to me that 1 Tim 2:11-12 remain completely within the marital realm, and specifically within the dynamics of the marriage being addressed, and have absolutely nothing to do with women’s conduct IN CHURCH.

I believe that you are right. There is nothing in these verses that appear that she is teaching and/or influencing anyone else. It is an issue with one man alone. I believe that he is one of the leaders of the church although I cannot prove that for sure. He is not deceived and he knows the truth as the situation is compared to the first married couple in the garden.

And the “all subjection” referenced in vs. 11 harkens back to Paul’s instruction for wives in Ephesians 5 to “submit…in all things” to their husbands. Call me looney (or forgetful) but I don’t see how verses 11-12 (or thru 15 for that matter) have one bit of relevance to the congregational setting.

You are not looney. You are correct. There is nothing in there about teaching a congregation.

How can people claim these verses are meant to keep women silent IN CHURCH and teaching only other women and children IN CHURCH when they seem to only be dealing with what is going on between a particular husband and wife IN MARRIAGE?

This is something that I have been asking since 2006 and I have yet to have anyone give me a clear answer.

57 gengwall,

2. “Restored” is a legitimate and probably better translation. It is strange that it only occurs in the footnote in the NIV and in no other translation. The idea is that this is a decieved and wayward Christian who needs to be brought back into communion with the congregation, not a heathen who needs salvation.

The problem with this translation is that the salvation (or as you say restoration) is *through* THE childbearing. This is a connection to Jesus and that would indicate a relationship is needed with him. If Paul had meant that there was to be a restoration with the congregation, then he should have said so. Nothing in the context says congregation or body of Christ. Secondly if she had to have her doctrine fixed up BEFORE she is restored into the body of Christ, then she would be in the same position as Hymenaeus and Alexander who were removed from the congregation. It appears clear to me that those who are deceived are to be welcomed into the congregation to receive teaching and correction.

3. This ties all the way back to the general instructions for the congregation on how to conduct themsleves found in verses 8-10.

But 9 – 10 is about women’s outward appearance. It isn’t about general congregation conduct. I don’t think this has anything to do with bringing a disfellowshipped (disenfranchised?) woman back into fellowship.

46 Truthseeker,

Our spouses and church elders are not to be our lords. Therefore, if it is actual false teaching and sinful, it DOES need to be addressed and is NO light matter. After all, we certainly see Paul in the N.T. getting serious about false teaching.

This brings up a very interesting point. If a woman’s spouse and her elder are teaching false teaching what is she supposed to do about it? Is she allowed to correct them? Would they believe her correction? There are so man “what if’s” in the whole comp situation that it makes one’s head spin. We really do need a Christian Talmud to have a place to write down all the answers so we know where to look when the bible is silent on a matter.

44 Truthseeker,

One woman, a lady in her early seventies, and part of the senior group, shared with me that she had written a piece about the function and purpose that the elderly can fulfill in the church. She had hoped to share (not preach) it at their next gathering. An official male elder to whom she innocently revealed her plan, asked her to have her husband share it. Though she told me she didn’t want at all to be divisive, she was nonetheless puzzled since God had given her the idea, not her husband. I understand it was never read, BTW.

Well you have to understand that if this 70ish year old lady gave her paper in front of the church some may have lustful thoughts so of course she isn’t eligible to speak to the church 😉

Oh and you too Stickler! Thanks.

Thy Peace #41,
Thanks for giving us a head’s up about other blog posts!