The Rest Of The Story 1 Timothy 211 15 And Matt Slick
> Proverbs 18:17 (ESV) The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him
Date: 2007-09-30
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/09/30/the-rest-of-the-story-1-timothy-211-15-and-matt-slick/
Proverbs 18:17 (ESV) The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Scripture warns us not to make a hasty judgment on a matter. When two sides have conflicting interpretations, those who wish to be Bereans should be willing to carefully consider all of the facts from both sides of the issue first in order to avoid making a hasty judgment. This week the opportunity of hearing complete evidence, weighing the evidence and then judging between the two interpretations was stopped as I was barred from giving out my full view of 1 Timothy 2 on Matt Slick’s Faith and Reason show. Since brother Matt refused to allow me to give my conclusions as to what my full belief is and why I hold my view from scripture alone, and since Matt has subsequently banned me from coming back on his radio program, in all fairness to his listeners and to others who are interested in what I have to say, this post will present “the rest of the story”.
First if you haven’t heard the audio debate where Matt said that I was not polite and he also accused me of being a heretic, you will probably want to listen first by clicking here.
While Matt claims that 1 Timothy 2:12 is absolutely clear in its meaning, there are several very serious problems if we take the verses in this passage out of their context. Unless one can understand the whole teaching unit, it is dangerous to try to extract some part of it. For example if one takes 1 Timothy 2:15 in isolation, one might reason that a woman is saved by having children and this would question the salvation of unmarried, childless women. Verse 12 could be reasonably interpreted to restrict a woman from teaching any thing to any man. A woman couldn’t even give a man directions on how to find an address for fear that she would be teaching him something.
Taking 1 Timothy 2:12 out of its context would also cause the Bible to contradict itself since Priscilla taught the Bible to Apollos in Acts 18:26. 1 Timothy 2:12 does not say that a woman will be out from the restriction and allowed to teach a man when certain conditions are met. It simply says “I do not allow a woman to teach or authenteo a man”, period. 1 Timothy 2:12 also does not tell us why Priscilla was not disciplined for teaching a man. Was she wrong in teaching Apollos or are there exceptions? It also appears that any woman cannot teach any man anything since Paul used the negation particles ouk and oude translated usually “neither…nor” respectively. If there are exceptions and this is not a hard and fast law of God’s, then where are the exceptions listed? More problems comes with verse 14 which could be interpreted as all women are easily deceived and unreliable in regard to decision-making and women could be considered inferior because they were created second.
Is this passage really as “clear” as Matt would like us to think it is? If so, then why is it that we need another book to identify all the things that women can or can’t do? The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has created a whole section of white, grey and black applications of 1 Timothy 2:12 and this is to give directions to churches who can’t figure out from 1 Timothy 2:12 whether a woman can be an usher, serve communion, teach math at a high school or at a college or whether she can teach Hebrew in seminary even if she isn’t teaching the word of God per se. Who is authorized to make these rules and why don’t Christians and Churches know the answers to their questions if 1 Timothy 2:12 is so clear? The fact is that it isn’t a clear cut verse that can stand on its own. It must be taken in its context.
One of the most fundamental principles of Christian rationality is that God doesn’t contradict himself (2 Tim 2:13). Therefore, no Christian may offer an interpretation of any verse that contradicts any other verse. In order for 1 Timothy 2:12 to remain consistent with the rest of scripture, we need to work hard to understand Paul’s letter to Timothy as it would have been understood by the recipient. Timothy was a young apostolic representative of Paul’s who was appointed by Paul to deal with a bevy of false teachers and false teaching in Ephesus. Paul’s letter to Timothy was not written in chapter and verse so we need to read the whole letter in context. We also need to understand the reason for the letter. Paul said:
1 Timothy 3:14 (ALT) These [things] I write to you, hoping [or, expecting] to come to you soon.
1 Timothy 3:15 (ALT) But if I delay, [I write] so that you shall know how it is necessary to be conducting yourself in [the] house of God, which is [the] Assembly [or, Church] of the living God, [the] pillar and foundation of the truth.
Paul writes a personal letter to Timothy so that Timothy knows how to conduct himself in the body of Christ. Timothy is told how to handle the problems and the problem people that Paul was concerned about. Timothy must handle the problems with the deceived, the deceivers and one particularly thorny problem that required Paul to single a woman out from all the other false teachers.
This brings us to the most important verse that is necessary to deal with to understand the issue of women in ministry and Paul’s prohibition against teaching in 1 Timothy 2:15. Without a correct understanding of this verse, we risk falling into a pattern of unrighteous judgment against women. Why is this so important? Because there are those who say that women who teach the bible with authority are sinning against God and these women must be stopped. This is a very serious charge. The primary verse they derive this understanding from is 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Timothy 2:15 is so interconnected with verse 12 that to focus on a prohibition without highlighting the completion of the prohibition is a recipe for disaster.
The key to understanding the object of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, is found in the specific grammar of verse 15. Paul says:
“she will be saved if they…”
Through this hard passage of scripture, Paul has:
-
Given priority to the solution – Verse 11 is the only verse in the imperative. Timothy is commanded to “let a woman learn” 1 Timothy 2:11
-
Identified the subject of the prohibition – “a woman” 1 Timothy 2:12 is stopped from doing something
-
Identified the reason for the prohibition – the deception of the one who was not the first one formed. 1 Timothy 2:13 says “for” or “because” and 1 Timothy 2:14 says “and” thus connecting these two verses to the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12
-
Identified the action needed as a result of the prohibition – “continue in faith, love, holiness and self control”.
-
Identified the subject “she” in verse 15 (a 3rd person singular) and attaches a condition, ” if they continue”. Continue is aorist active subjunctive, third person plural, which is used by Paul to identify not only the woman doing the teaching, but also the man whom she is deceiving as mentioned in verse 12. If an action is required then the people required to do the action must be alive and not dead.
-
Identified the means of the solution – “saved”. This Greek word sozo is only ever used by Paul in his epistles in reference to spiritual salvation.
-
Identified the source of the solution – literally translated “the childbearing”. This word in Greek is teknogonia and is a unique word only used this one time in scripture and it is a noun and not a verb. It is a reference to the promised child, the Messiah who would be born to the woman and in spite of the deception of the first woman, the Messiah would come through her to destroy the deceiver.
-
Identifies the promise – “she” will be saved…if “they”
1 Timothy 2:15 (LITV) but she will be kept safe through the childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with sensibleness.
So while Paul prohibits “a woman” from teaching in verse 12, he goes on to promise her salvation in verse 15 “she shall be saved” if she continues in what he has commanded in verse 11 namely “let a woman learn”. This, in her case, was how she was to persevere in holiness etc.
I believe that the only way these verses can be understood at all is to reference verse 15 back to verses 11 and 12. I see no other way to take verse 15 with the precise grammar than to see that verses 11 and 12 are referencing a specific woman that Paul is prohibiting from teaching and influencing “a man” (the Greek word aner can also refer to a husband and with this close relationship with this woman, the Greek word aner I believe should be taken as husband because he is shown to be in direct relationship to “a woman” or “wife”.)
Why do I say that this is the only way to understand verse 15? It is because Paul has been so precise in his grammar that there is no other way we can get past the fact that he is stopping a specific woman in verse 12. The reason is that he says “she” and “they” in verse 15 and the only singular feminine that “she” can be attached to is “a woman” from verse 12. It is future tense so it cannot be Eve since Eve is dead. It cannot be taken to indicate a reference to plural women (as mistranslated in the NASB, NIV) since “she shall be saved” is a correct translation of the future tense, passive voice, 3rd person singular form of the verb sozo (sothesetai). Again, note that Paul also says “they”. “She” and “they” cannot refer to the same thing otherwise the grammar is nonsensical. “She” must be a specific woman and “they” must refer back to “a woman” together with “a man”. (I believe that “they” is unlikely to refer to women in general or that “a man” in verse 12 is men in general. The reason is that if “a woman” is required to complete the grammatical usage of “she” in verse 15, then it would be highly unlikely that Paul would say “a woman” to mean a specific woman and “a man” to be generic men. In that case Paul would be only working to confuse us instead of using specific grammar to identify specific people. If “a man” was meant to be men, then Paul should have grammatically said “I do not permit a woman from teaching or to authenteo men.” It is my view that Paul was consistent where he used the same grammar and so “a man” would be a particular man. Secondly since “she” and “they” were to do something together “continue on in faith, etc”, then a relationship between the “she” and “they” has been established. It is possible that Paul is requiring other women to work with this woman to help her get established in her faith, but the most direct reference back to “they” would be “a woman” and “a man” from verse 12 since no other living people are referenced that would allow the “they” to be a reference back to since “a woman” was introduced in verse 11.)
Why is all of this of such vital importance? It is because Paul is passionate about those who have been deceived. Paul says that the ones who are ignorant and thus act out of their unbelief are just like he was and they have the opportunity to receive mercy just like he did:
1 Timothy 1:13 (LITV) the one who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and insolent; but I received mercy, because being ignorant I did it in unbelief.
Paul tells us in his own words that he received mercy because he was ignorant of the truth and because of this, his sinful actions were done in unbelief. Paul is so focused on the salvation of the ignorant that he repeats the reason that he received mercy:
1 Timothy 1:15 (LITV) Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
1 Timothy 1:16 (LITV) But for this reason I received mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for an example to those being about to believe on Him to everlasting life.
Again Paul refers to his ignorance and his unbelief and says “but for this reason I received mercy“. Paul’s act of stopping the false teachers in 1 Timothy 1:3 is a heart of compassion for their salvation:
1 Timothy 1:3 (NASB) As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
1 Timothy 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
1 Timothy 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
Paul then picks up on one of these false teachers who is a special problem. It is easier for Timothy to stop the individual false teachers who are men, but one of these teachers is a woman and the man who is likely her husband is letting her influence him with her deception. There are two markers in the text that indicate that the man is likely the woman’s husband. The first marker is in verse 11 “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” It was normative for a woman to be married and if she was required to have entire submissiveness then this was a sign that she was married because “entire submissiveness” is only ever spoken of as something that a wife does for her husband. Secondly for a single woman to be teaching a single man on an on-going basis would be highly unlikely in that culture unless he was married to her. The cultural norm was that men kept their distance from women who were not their wives. Even Priscilla was not alone when she taught Apollos. Her husband was with her.
With Timothy’s timidity, being a very young apostolic representative would have caused him problems in dealing with a specific false teacher who was likely married to the man whom she was influencing. For Timothy to stop her meant that he was interfering in her marriage. Her husband (or “a man”) was not stopping her from teaching error. In fact he was being influenced by her in a way that Paul likens the situation to that of Adam and Eve (the first married couple). The husband Adam was not deceived but his wife was the one who fell into sin through deception. The man in verse 12 is like Adam who was not in a place of deception (Paul does not say in verse 15 “they” will be saved if “they”. He only says “she” will be saved if “they”.) The question of salvation is directly tied to the woman alone and her teaching had to be stopped even if it was interfering in a marriage where the husband was taking no responsibility for the problem. Timid Timothy was reminded in 2 Timothy 1:6, 7 that we need to operate in our gifts without timidity (even if he is correcting someone else’s wife!)
2 Timothy 1:6 (NASB) For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
2 Timothy 1:7 (NASB) For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.
Paul’s reminding Timothy that God wants us to act in power and not with timidity shows us that Timothy’s age may have been an additional component showing us why Paul wrote the way he did to Timothy. The stopping of this one deceived woman would require Paul to push Timothy to act out of compassion for her salvation. Paul then promises that she too can be saved just like he was. This is not a woman who was a deliberate deceiver and the action was not to kick her out of the body of Christ as Paul had done when he turned Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan:
1 Timothy 1:19 NASB keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.
1 Timothy 2:20 (NASB) Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
Paul’s belief was that she was one of the ones who were acting ignorantly and in unbelief so that she too could receive mercy if she was taught the truth. Paul’s words that she *will* be saved if… shows us the confidence that God was going to show this woman mercy just as he showed Paul mercy at the time that Paul was acting in ignorance and unbelief.
Now for those who think that the word for “teach” didasko cannot refer to false teaching because Paul didn’t specifically use the word for “another teaching” heterodidaskaleo in Greek, we only have to turn to the book of Revelation to see that John used didasko twice to reference false teaching.
Rev 2:14 ‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
Rev 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
Revelation 2:20 is an interesting case because teach and lead are attached together and both are negative things. Didasko is used here without a doubt to reference false teaching. Also the Lord Jesus does not say that he has something against the church in Pergamum because they have a woman leading and teaching as if it was her gender that was the problem but rather that she was teaching error. Scripture says that she calls herself a prophetess but God did not call her this. God does gift women as prophetesses (Acts 21:9). Deborah was not only a prophetess, but she was also a judge over Israel, chosen and gifted by God. But the woman in Revelation 2:20 was not one of the true teachers of God’s word and the evidence was not her gender but her teaching.
Again, it seems that if a traditionalist interpretation is taken, then 1 Timothy 2:12 is a clear blanket statement that prevents a godly Christian woman from teaching true doctrine to adult men. Where does the Bible have a law prohibiting this? I believe this is a large inconsistency in the complementarian understanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and inconsistency is one of the signs of a failed argument.
Instead this passage is best seen as a complete story of ignorance, unbelief, false teaching and ultimate salvation through the correct teaching of biblical doctrine that leads to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (the promised Messiah through the woman see 1 Timothy 2:15 and Genesis 3:15). After many years of study, this is what I conclude about the meaning of this passage. This is what makes sense to me given everything in the context of verses 12 and 15. I recognize that other sincere, godly people have come to different conclusions from mine, but I think that this interpretation deserves to be given a fair hearing. To this date no one has shown me any other valid option for the “she” in 1 Timothy 2:15, nor have they shown me any scripture where God prohibited his words from being spoken through a woman. As lovers of the incarnate Word and the written word we should always try to practice consistent, contextual interpretation. In my opinion, for us to take one verse and rip it from its inspired context is to refuse to rightly divide the word of truth:
2 Timothy 2:15 NASB Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
This is the message that I was prohibited from sharing on Matt Slick’s radio program Faith and Reason. Matt forbid me from sharing why I believed that 1 Timothy 2:12 was referencing one specific deceived woman the first two times that I appeared on his program and he has forbidden me from coming back on his radio program to share the rest of the scripture on this passage. What this does is leave my teaching hanging so that people are not able to understand what I was saying about this difficult passage. Matt says that I was not polite to him and that is why I cannot come back. Listen here to the second session with Matt Slick and you decide for yourself if I was polite or not.
Those who hold back the words of God that are spoken with authority by a woman will have to answer to God. 1 Peter 4:10 and 11 gives women not only the right to speak for God but the obligation to do so:
1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God;…
Since Peter is not limiting those who speak the utterances of God to men, Paul too would not have contradicted the word of God spoken through Peter. In 1 Timothy 3 Paul is not digressing into an unconnected subject about how to pick overseers and deacons. Instead Paul is continuing on to give hope that anyone can aspire to a place of responsibility and servanthood even though a person had been previously deceived. Those who had been false teachers and who submitted themselves to correction might be restored to such a ministry. Paul himself had been deceived in ignorance and unbelief and thus he obtained mercy. Paul’s original state of deception did not stop him from moving on to maturity and to greater responsibility as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus.
Women who believe 1 Peter 4:11 and obey the command to teach with authority as one who is “speaking the utterances of God” should not be accused of sinning against God when they employ their gift to “serve one another” in the entire body of Christ. For those who teach that men alone are allowed to give out God’s word with authority, I ask a pointed question about authority. When a godly woman teaches orthodox doctrine from God’s inerrant word, where does the “authority” reside, in the woman or in God’s word? If authority is in God’s word alone, then there is no special authority given to one gender alone to give forth God’s words just as there is no special authority for only one gender to hear from God. We need to test all things and hold fast to what is good.
In closing, we want to be very careful that we do not rip 1 Timothy 2:12 from its context because some who have done this in the past have taken the church into a precarious position where the world sees us as prejudiced and unkind to women. May God help us to stand up for women and release them into his service.
*Copyright 2007 by Cheryl Schatz. Permission is granted to use this article to post on a web site or on a blog site as long as it is kept in its original full form without editing and that credit is given to myself and a link back to this blog site mmoutreach.org/wim. For any other use, please contact me at:
Wayne Leman
2007-09-30
Cheryl, this is a helpful post. I have linked to it at the new Complegalitarian blog.
Cheryl
2007-09-30
Great!! Thanks Wayne!
Dusman
2007-10-01
Here you go Cheryl: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/10/most-consistent-interpretation-of-1-tim.html
davidbmclaughlin.com
2007-10-01
I have long appreciated carm.org which is Slick’s excellent apologetics website. But I have heard some thing on his radio program that bother me greatly.
After this I unfortunately will have to strongly consider removing his link from my website.
davidbmclaughlin.com
2007-10-01
I just left a comment on Matt’s blog asking him to publicly retract his charge of you as a heretic. It has not been posted yet due to comment moderation but I hope he retracts it. Could care less if he posts my comment.
Cheryl
2007-10-01
Thank you David for your support. I posted too on his podcast blog asking him and/or his supporters to read “the rest of the story” here. Something tells me that my comments won’t make the grade either. It is so sad. All the years I worked with Jehovah’s Witnesses leading them to the Lord and now they are being told that I am the heretic? The Watchtower tactic was always to keep the reigns tight so that others cannot hear the truth. They say don’t read that book, or watch that TV show or take any religious literature from anyone. Matt has stopped me from saying the rest of the story, told me that I have to be silent (a.k.a “shut up”) and forbidden me from coming back on his radio show. He did originally say that I was allowed back only if I agreed to supply in writing my entire argument so that he had in advance what I was going to say and I had to agree to speak no longer than 1.5 minutes per question. When I agreed to his restrictions, he rescinded the invitation. I guess that it is okay to have on atheists and all kinds of heretics, but he doesn’t want his audience to hear a woman teach her interpretation of the bible even if he gets to try to refute me and he gets to control the mike. I find this just so sad! What will the atheists think about this? Christians calling other Christians heretics.
I agree with Wade that the term “heretic” needs to be reserved for cases where the essentials are being denied or distorted. If we term people heretics just because they don’t fully agree with every point of doctrine, then we all would be heretics.
In case anyone is interested the link to Matt Slick’s podcast blog where they refer to my teaching as heresy is http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2007/09/matt-slick-and-cheryl-part-two-926.html
If anyone else would like to ask Matt to rescind his charge, I think that it might wake him up concerning his attitude.
Michael Terran
2007-10-02
Also in NAS in Romans 16 it uses the male form Junias
KJV uses the female form Junia,
which is a name like tiffany it can Only be female, plus the name was commonly used as female only we see that in History/Writings of old!
Cheryl
2007-10-02
Also if anyone wants to interact with Matt regarding his calling me a heretic his email is carmradio@gmail.com and his phone number for his radio show is 208-377-3790. He takes calls Monday to Thursday between 6 – 7 Mountain time. (That is 5-6 pm Pacific, 7-8 pm Central and 8-9 Eastern time).
If Matt actually had some serious callers dispute his way of dealing with me rather than just his “Carmites” emailing him and phoning him (Carmites is a term Matt has coined for those who are his followers – i.e. followers of CARM) perhaps Matt might consider changing his ways, and maybe even have me back on his program for one last time! Well, not likely but it doesn’t hurt to try.
Cheryl
2007-10-02
Also thanks to Pastor Wade Burleson for linking to my article and posting on the radio discussion that I had with Matt Slick. Pastor Wade’s blog article is at http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-use-of-word-heretic-is-unhelpful.html
teknomom
2007-10-02
Cheryl, I don’t know where the link is to the comments in the Slick website. Did your post ever appear (the outline one)? If so, was it unedited? (trying not to laugh now)
Cheryl
2007-10-02
Lew,
One last thing…do you want to be my coach? I could use all the help I can get!
🙂
Cheryl
2007-10-02
teknomom,
I posted a much shorter version first just in case they were hesitant to put up anything longer. He already thinks I am long winded!
The podcast blog is here http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2007/09/matt-slick-and-cheryl-part-two-926.html
and no the comment has not been approved and neither has anyone else’s comments. I highly doubt that Matt or Diane will post my comment since they already took of the advertising to my DVDs from the audio on their podcast (said they wouldn’t allow advertising for heresy!) Since I haven’t changed my exegesis since I was on the show, I am assuming that I am still a heretic to them and nothing I post will show up. Wouldn’t that be a blessing if I was wrong?
teknomom
2007-10-02
Sure would. Thanks!
Don Johnson
2007-10-02
Charis,
I believe that such is the case. This is true for 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14, Eph 5-6 and 1 Tim 2-3. They are all good news for women (and men).
Dusman
2007-10-02
Stephen said,
“I think your key reasoning is that scripture, when properly interpreted, cannot contradict other scripture.”
I addressed that in light of Cheryl’s brief exchange with Matt Slick here: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-can-women-be-pastors-part-2.html
Charis
2007-10-02
★
Thanks so much for your patience with me. I had some ideas swirling around but I have only a rudimentary greek training and rely on strong’s and the interlinear. I don’t know the conjugations of verbs and such which does impact the translation.
[quote]Cheryl wrote: ” “they” is (now I am not too sure about this one so correct me if I am wrong) women in the past? You said “have continued in” but the tense is something that is to be done at the time that Paul wrote it. That means that both “she” and “they” must do something together.”[/quote]
What if the “she” is Eve/me/woman and the “they” who continue in faith….. are women future to Paul? (which would be faithful women of the past to me- in 2007)
I think your assumption and proof Paul is addressing a problem contemporary to himself and Timothy is a valid assumption. But I wonder if there is another “level” to the scripture here (as there is with much of OT prophecy)? IOW it is personal, it applies to ME too, not just the people back then who were contempories of Paul and Timothy?
Another possibility which I wondered about is this:
Gune can be translated “wife”
THEY- the husband and wife?
My rendering:
Let the wife learn in quietness with all subjection.
I don’t permit a wife to continuously teach nor usurp authority over the husband, but to be in quietness.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve
And Adam was not deceived, but the wife being deceived has made/birthed a breach/transgression. She will be saved/made whole/restored now by means of begetting/birthing the child if THEY (husband and wife?) continue in fidelity and love and holiness with sobriety.
Since it is “she” who is made whole (not “they”) perhaps saved/made whole refers to a restoration of a womanly character, reputation, role. No longer held in contempt as “deceived” but “discerning”. Her pre-transgression and pre-curse dominion/authority and position in marriage restored. Like a reversal of the curse upon Eve
This seems to be some parallel preaching by Paul:
Gal 4:19 ¶ My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Perhaps the child-bearing in 1Tim is the child of promise rather than the child of the bondwoman? It is the woman moving from life under the law, in the Old Covenant to life under the promise, to freedom under the New Covenant.. She moves from “one born after the flesh” to “one born after the spirit”. That would mean the possibility is there for ALL women, married, single, childless
I feel as though I lived under the law! I believed what the teachers, preachers, books, translators, commentators said about women being silent, restricted, easily deceived. Their news was not good news to me, it spoke death over me. And I quenched the witness of the Spirit within which cried out at the bondage and yearned for life and freedom. I was a baby Christian for 25 years, never really growing up and learning to walk in the Spirit, still in bondage, living under the flesh, living legalistic without a deep relationship with God…. So I personally identify with the process illustrated in this verse “Cast out the bondwoman!” : moving out from a life in bondage under the law into liberty!
Gal 5:1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Charis
2007-10-02
I want to thank you all for being so polite and respectful.
This is how I found you:
HERE
Charis
2007-10-03
Cheryl said:
“My research and documentation has proven that 1 Cor. 15:36 is one of the most powerful statements of liberty and restoration and completely refutes even today’s hierarchists. I fully agree with you and isn’t this just like our God and Savior?”
and I didn’t see 1Cor 15:36 in your index on the side…
I’m intrigued by it, but I want to finish thinking through this 1Tim passage first.
I’m gonna be gone a couple days. (Its my 25th wedding anniversary 🙂 )
speaking of which…. I think the divorce rate is higher among patriarchal Christians than in the world (see the article “A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority in Marriage: at this link http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/biblical_studies.shtml ) because the women eventually grow up and want to have a say about their own life… Fortunately, my husband has made the adjustment 🙂 though he still has no clue about all this stuff that I am learning (YIKES!)
Cheryl
2007-10-03
Mary,
A BIG welcome! I hope you enjoy your way around. There is a lot of food for thought on things that you probably never thought about.
My thoughts on whether God has a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men has 3 parts and will get you to thinking, I am sure. You can find part one by clicking here
and at the bottom of the article are links to part two and part two links to part three.
Welcome my sister in Christ! Any complementarian that doesn’t consider women who teach God’s word with authority as sinning against God is in my good books!!
🙂 Cheryl
Cheryl
2007-10-03
Lin,
A big AMEN! It isn’t helpful to “appeal to authority” without proving where the position is wrong.
Cheryl
2007-10-03
teknomom, you are amazing. Your patience is commendable! Anyways your example does show up for me in the email that is sent to notify me there is more responses. I don’t know if it shows up that way in everyone’s email box (I assume it does) but thanks! Now I know too!
By the way, I have been having some discussion with Matt on his discussion board. It’s have been great without the audio because you don’t hear an attitude. Okay, so the attitude is still there, but hey it’s better than hearing it! If any one wants to get in on the discussion, go to http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org. You will need to sign up for an account. Once you have the account you page down to the section listed for CARM radio. All the categories are on the main page and you will find Carm radio towards the bottom. You will find the women pastors section right at the top once you are in the Carm radio section. It has been interesting to say the least. So far Matt is refusing to answer questions. I do realize that he is a busy man, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I am persistent and I have a lot of patience. I will wait to get my answers. 🙂
Blessings,
Cheryl
teknomom
2007-10-03
Thanks Cheryl… but I can’t always tell patience from the will to win! 😉
Don Johnson
2007-10-03
I put in my comment on CARM board about Matt inviting Cheryl back.
Dusman
2007-10-04
That’s a good summary Don.
Don Johnson
2007-10-04
Yes, we all need each other. I found Cheryl’s DVD and website after I prayed for additional wisdom on 1 Tim.
Charis
2007-10-05
★
God does not contradict itself and if I am seeing a contradiction in Scripture then the problem is with MY interpretation, NOT with God’s Word!!! I could see QUITE CLEARLY other examples of women exercising authority in delivering the Gospel (even unto men!) and serving the Lord ( Luke 2:36-38 ; John 4:28-29,39 ; Matt 28:5-7 ; Php 4:3 ; 1Cor 11:5 ; Ac 18:26 ) And, I know for a fact that nothing in scripture is intended to put down, disrespect, demean, or enslave women and if I am hearing or reading it that way, the problem is with MY hearing not with GOD’s intention! I believe that- WHATEVER the intentions of the passage- they reflect God’s loving and protective heart for HIS daughters (and sons).
So, I began to look at the greek words (to the best of my limited ability) and other scriptures which could be parallel passages. Wives are told to submit/be in subjection to husbands in several other places (some of them in Paul’s writing). In greek there is only one word gune which translates wife/woman and one word aner which translates husband/man. What if the greek word “aner” in the passage in question should be translated “husband” and the greek word “gune” should be translated “wife”.??? The word for “usurp authority” is unique and implies very forceful behavior carrying the meaning: absolute master; murderous; autocratic.
Reading the passage in question with wife and husband seemed quite consistent with other scripture and also reflects my personal experience of Christian marriage.
A wife should not be finger wagging didactic nor forcefully wresting authority from her husband .
WHY?
Because she is a horrible rotten sinner if she does so? NO.
Because it DOESN’T WORK! It is ineffective!
What if the reason God says it is not because a woman/wife is inferior, deceived, can’t teach, or doesn’t see something in her husband’s character that needs fixing? Perhaps it is for her own protection. Because a husband will simply not listen nor hear a wife who is finger wagging didactic nor attempting to forcefully exercise authority over him. It is counterproductive for a wife to deal with a husband in a manner which comes across as “parental”. It won’t “fix him”. To the contrary; he will- at least- dig in his heels if he doesn’t get downright abusive. God knows that!
Charis
2007-10-06
oops, here’s that link:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/male_headship.shtml
Charis
2007-10-06
this weekend is Thanksgiving here in Canada
Happy Thanksgiving!
I’ll pray right now for you and yours!
Bless you!
Michael Terran
2007-10-06
The below was send to me from Harvest Church In IL. they don’t believe in Biblical Equality and tey try to use the Trinity to support this flase teaching about women!
Michael,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your heart. I’ve included a link to an article that you might find interesting.
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-6-No-1/Tampering-With-the-Trinity
Many blessings to you as you seek to faithfully follow our Lord,
Gerald
Michael Terran
2007-10-06
To Don Johnson,
Thanks Don for the extra info! It’s cool that I’m not the only guy on this site!
Michael Terran
2007-10-06
basic 2-step formula
Thanks again Don, you make it so easy and simple a child can understand that one!
Don Johnson
2007-10-07
On the exegesis and application paradigm, Gordon Fee says most of what I wrote. I try to learn from everyone I can.
Charis
2007-10-07
Hi Don,
Thanks. 🙂
I’m too young to recall 1950’s english.
However, I took french and spanish in HS and I lived in Italy for a year while my husband did his post-doc so I am quite familiar with how the Romance languages use gender and I assume the greek use of gender is similar. (ie plurals where males and females are included take a masculine plural, hence “brethren” is not just the male Christians, but the female and male Christians)
I use a rather old version of the “Online Bible” (which is installed on my computer from a CD ( http://www.onlinebible.net/)
It has the Strong’s and it has a “Young’s Literal Translation” (which used “men”) but no “Literal Version”. Do you know of a website where it is available? While we are at it, do you know of a website with an interlinear (greek/english)? I can read greek letters, I don’t know the conjugations, tenses, and grammar.
Thanks bro!
teknomom
2007-10-07
Hey Charis,
There are some great online Bibles and interlinears. Here are some links:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/
Cheryl
2007-10-10
Oh and one more thing….I haven’t had a chance to read the comments here yet. That will have to come another day. One thing at a time!
teknomom
2007-10-11
Hey Michael Terran,
Just passing things along I read from others. The thing about who was driven out of the garden is that it has the article with it, i.e. “the man” and not just “man”. It’s like that for both who was driven out and who was forbidden to eat of the tree. To think I read it all those years, never knowing half the truth, because most translations use “they”.
I highly recommend Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women available for free online viewing at the GWTW website.
Michael Terran
2007-10-11
Thank you for that info!
Billy
2007-12-18
The issue of both passages has to do with speaking and teaching while assembled as a “church”. Priscilla did not teach during the church gathering.
Michael Terran
2007-12-19
Hello Billy,
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4251
On this site it has your meaning which is correct but it also means Priest! I have to do some digging ok, I know I have the article with the info.
I love to be corrected when I’m wrong.That’s for your test! like I said let me check up on this again it’s been awhile, ok.
Michael Terran
2007-12-19
“That’s for your test!” misspelled
Thanks for the test!
teknomom
2007-12-19
I hope and pray that someday people will stop calling good exegesis “modern” and the perpetuation of poor exegesis “the plain reading of scripture” (see also This Article). What many call “plain reading” is just lazy reading.
Cheryl, you’d think that after 2 years someone would have come up with a refutation of your material, especially given the rabid misogyny of CBMW. For them to ignore you is a very telling sign. I think they’re afraid!
Cheryl
2007-12-19
Michael,
You are right in that there was much in Ephesus that was cultic and threatened to take the church into error. Thank you for sharing that!
Michael Terran
2007-12-29
Hello Kim,
Your using your Gift of Pastoral Right now On This site. Thanks for the Bibical Teaching… Good Fruit! Keep going for Jesus and I’ll be right next to you on my knee’s scrubing the floor with you. (Smile)
Metacrock
2008-02-14
I like your blog and I appreciate waht you are doing.I share the overall goal of freeing women to serve God in the way they are called. I too have had my tensions with Matt Slick. I know he can be gualing.
I just don’t think that apporach to 1 Tim 2:15 is necessary. I think it’s a much simpler answer is clear. I’ve studied that passage for years I learned Greek so I could deal with the “egal” issues.
my view, if you are interested, can be found here:
http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=54
btw I have an egal message board and I need people to post on it. I would be honored if you would.
Cheryl
2008-02-14
★
Metacrock,
No offense taken at all. I don’t mind people arguing with passion. I happen to love people who have lots of passion. By the way, you may be interested to know that “a woman” absolutely can be a certain woman according to the Greek. When I was dialogging with CBMW two years ago they admitted that to me. I was told, though, that the accepted position was that “a woman” was all women and if I believed it to be a particular woman, then I would have to prove my point of view from the passage. I believe that I have done this quite well. This is why I always challenge people to show me who the “she” is from verse 15 and who the “they” are. It cannot be “she” AND “she” or “they” AND “they” because the inspired grammar says third person feminine singular AND third person plural. The only “she” one can find in the passage who is alive at the time of Paul’s writing was “a woman” whom Paul stopped from teaching. There is no other singular woman in the passage and “she” must not be confused with “they” or the passage is confusing and redundant.
In addition, the inspired word doesn’t say that she will be saved in childbearing (a verb). It says that she (singular) will be saved in THE childbirth (a noun) IF they (plural)… It is also future tense not past tense. This isn’t about things that have already happened in the past. This isn’t about some Greek myth about women being saved physically through some goddess helping women. That thought might sound good but it isn’t provable in the passage and it does not jive with the inspired Greek. Paul was very specific. He said “she WILL be saved….IF they….” There are actions that need to be done by both of them so that she (singular) will make it past her problems. Her salvation is hanging in the balance but Paul believes she will make it out of the error she is in and there is someone else in the picture who will help her. Her salvation does not come because of works, but the things that Paul has already stated in chapter one will be the very things that will keep her safe from deception and hold her in the truth.
The meaning is in the passage itself. It isn’t in Greek myth. The meaning is not in generic woman either. We either accept that Paul was inspired and wrote the exact words that God inspired or we don’t accept that. I accept that Paul wrote exactly what God wanted him to and I do this because I fully believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. No interpretation can be true when that interpretation ignores some of the divinely inspired words or the divinely inspired grammar.
Lastly Paul wrote in the book Corinthians about “a man” who 14 years ago was caught up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:3, 4). Paul didn’t say “this man” or “that man”. He just said “a man” yet we know for sure that it wasn’t generic man, it was a specific man. If Paul could specify a specific man by calling him “a man” in 2 Cor., then surely he could specify a specific woman in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 and call her “a woman”. The proof is in Paul’s writings.
I don’t mean to be repetitious, but the full view is spelled out in my DVD set. If you can find a hole in the exegesis when you have seen the entire argument, you may win the prize. So far no one has been able to poke a hole in my exegesis although many have tried. Many more have been silent because the view makes sense of the entire passage.
Recently Rev. Michael Hicks said this about my exegesis:
“I am a Senior Pastor of a Foursquare Church. I have never been satisfied with the interpretations offered over several difficult verses which seem to restrict women in ministry. Not because I did not like them, but those interpretations left God Almighty constantly contradicting His word, or at least these interpretations. This DVD did an outstanding job of linking the passages together and answering them in a thoughtful and exceptionally Borean way. And they no longer make God out to be a contradictor of His own word. Wonderful job Holy Spirit, Thank you.”
I concur. I believe it was the Holy Spirit who made his word clear and understandable and he is the one who will receive all the praise.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more