The following is the fourth post in our Blog Conference on Women and Ministry during which we’ll be hosting posts written by people from a range of viewpoints with the opportunity for you to interact with the material and discuss the implications for the Church and the gospel. You can read more about the conference by clicking here. In the following, Cheryl Schatz addresses the interpretation of a key passage in the gender debate and discusses its implication for the church’s ministry.
For those who believe that God views the issue of women teaching the bible to men as an abominable sin, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the lone verse used to establish this “sin”. The question that we need to ask ourselves is whether we have correctly understood this verse within its complete context. When 1 Timothy 2:12 is taken out of its context, there are all kinds of conflicts with the rest of the Scripture. For example:
1. How come this “sin” was unknown in the Old Testament? All of God’s laws have their foundation in the Old Testament but God’s word is silent on a “law” that forbids godly women from teaching the bible to men. The King of Israel sent a group of men to learn about God’s word from Huldah (2 Kings 22:13, 14). God chose to speak through this woman to the men with a message to the King. No one including God said that Huldah’s ministry to the men from God’s word was a sin. How can what was lawful for thousands of years suddenly become a “sin”?
2. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal “law” against women teaching the bible to men, then it is a unique law unlike every other one of God’s laws. It is the only “law” that is written in the words of a man “I (Paul) do not allow a woman…” It is also the only “law” that has no second witness in the Scriptures. Every single universal law is repeated in the scriptures as a second witness is used to establish and confirm the law (Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1) and Paul wrote that repetition is for our safety (Philippians 3:1). It also would be the only “universal sin” that is written in a personal letter without qualification given to the church at large. On top of that it is the only “universal sin” that is claimed to be established at creation without a single word from God about this “sin”. How is that establishing this “law” and how is it safe for godly women to understand what is sin and what is not when at least half the church does not see this as a universal sin or they limit the extent of this “sin”?
3. How come this “sin” is never listed in any list of sins and no account of any woman reprimanded for this “sin” is ever given as an example of the extent of this “sin”? Since God has been exceptionally gracious to us in listing and confirming universal sins throughout the Scriptures so that we can understand what sin is so that we can avoid practicing sin, how come there is only one “sin” that God has been silent about and given not a single parameter that defines the extent of this “sin”? Is it a sin for a woman to teach the bible to men in her home? Is it a sin if she teaches only one man at a time? How old does a man have to be before it becomes a sin for a woman to teach him? How come there are no natural answers to these questions in the Bible if this is a “universal sin”?
Rather than taking one scripture as a brand new “universal sin” that was never before revealed to mankind through the pages of the Bible, wouldn’t it be better to understand what Paul actually meant within the context of his letter to Timothy? This article is written to help us sort through this difficult passage.
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 local 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 is 1 Timothy 2:15. Without a correct understanding of this verse, we risk falling into a pattern of unrighteous judgment against women. Why is this so important? Because there are those who say that women who teach the bible with authority are sinning against God and these women must be stopped. This is a very serious charge. The primary verse they derive this understanding from is 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Timothy 2:15 is so interconnected with verse 12 that to focus on a prohibition without highlighting the completion of the prohibition is a recipe for disaster.
The key to understanding the object of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, is found in the specific grammar of verse 15. Paul says:
“she will be saved if they…”
Through this hard passage of scripture, Paul has:
1. Given priority to the solution - Verse 11 is the only verse as a command. Timothy is commanded to “let a woman learn” 1 Timothy 2:11
2. Identified the subject of the prohibition - “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12 is stopped from doing something
3. Identified the reason for the prohibition – the deception of the one who was not the first one formed. 1 Timothy 2:13 says “for” and 1 Timothy 2:14 says “and” which connects these two verses to the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12
4. Identified the action needed as a result of the prohibition – “continue in faith, love, holiness and self control”.
5. Identified the subject “she” in verse 15 (a 3rd person singular) and attaches a condition, ” if they continue”. Paul here identifies not only the woman doing the teaching, but also the man whom she is deceiving as mentioned in verse 12. If an action is required then the people required to do the action must be alive and not dead.
6. Identified the means of the solution – “saved”. This Greek word used here for “saved” is only ever used by Paul in his epistles in reference to spiritual salvation.
7. Identified the source of the solution – literally translated “the childbearing”. This word is a unique word only used this one time in scripture and it is a noun and not a verb. It is a reference to the promised child, the Messiah who would be born to the woman and in spite of the deception of the first woman, the Messiah would come through her to destroy the deceiver.
8. Identifies the promise – “she” will be saved…if “they”
1 Timothy 2:15 (LITV) but she will be kept safe through the childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with sensibleness.
So while Paul prohibits “a woman” from teaching in verse 12, he goes on to promise her salvation in verse 15 “she shall be saved” if she continues in what he has commanded in verse 11 namely “let a woman learn”. This, in her case, was how she was to persevere in holiness etc.
I believe that the only way these verses can be understood at all is to reference verse 15 back to verses 11 and 12. I see no other way to take verse 15 with the precise grammar than to see that verses 11 and 12 are referencing a specific woman that Paul is prohibiting from teaching and influencing “a man” (the Greek word aner can also refer to a husband and with this close relationship with this woman, the Greek word aner I believe should be taken as husband because he is shown to be in direct relationship to “a woman” or “wife”.)
Why do I say that this is the only way to understand verse 15? It is because Paul has been so precise in his grammar that there is no other way we can get past the fact that he is stopping a specific woman in verse 12. The reason is that Paul 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 and NIV) since “she shall be saved” is a correct translation of the future tense.
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 … 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 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). 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 this woman 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” cannot refer to false teaching, we only have to turn to the book of Revelation to see that John used this same Greek word 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. 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.
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.
Cheryl Schatz is a director of MM Outreach. Read more about our contributors here.
>> Next post on September 10th – “Women and Ministry – equal but sometimes different”, Doug Haley.
Related posts:
The issue is not whether my interpretation is just “possible” but whether there is any contradictions within the position itself. This will determine whether the position is viable or not.
Cheryl, thanks for your response. I’m afraid I haven’t had time to work through all that you’ve said as yet, but one thing you wrote is a particular bugbear of mine. You’ve said, “I am also so glad that Jesus called him ‘Abba’ which means Daddy.”
This is a common misconception. Nonetheless, Abba does not mean “Daddy.” If it did, the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic term in the gospels would also have used one of the diminutive terms rather than the more formal ὁ πατήρ. More comprehensively, see James Barr, “Abba isn’t Daddy,” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988) 28–47.
If I can find time in the next few days I’ll try and make some comments on your more lengthy post.
Martin Shields.
Martin,
I look forward to your further interaction with my post.
Thanks Cheryl,
Regarding your thoughts about contradictions, do you mean there are no contadictions in this specific part of scripture, or that it doesn’t contradict with other parts of the bible? If you refer to the latter i would have to disagree.
It seems that in order for your exegesis to be correct with the rest of scripture, terms such as ‘submission’ need to be re-difined (Dave’s post) and terms like ‘head’ need to be re-defined. At present i do not see a good re-interpretation of these words as expressed by egal arguments.
I can’t see how egals positions don’t contradict not only with this Timothy passage, but also 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Titus 1:6-9. I haven’t seen sound arguments for these passages to fit into egal thinking. But none the less i appreciate your exegesis abilities and zeal for the truth. Also i think your understanding of why God is refered in Masc terms fails in 3 ways.
1. God is refered in Masc terms pre-fall. This doesnt suggest to me He chose to be refered to this way because of the failure of the first ‘father’.
2. Even after we have been redeemed ‘once for all’ by Christ, that is, the second Adam has restored our relationship with God, He is still refered to in Masc terms.
3. You talk about Adam being the one who brought sin into the world, even though Eve was the first to eat. Does this not imply that Adam is somehow resposible for his lack of leadership/protection of Eve. Why is it that God calls to the ‘man’ when they are hiding in the garden and converses wth him. This all seems like a contradiction to the egal position. Although perhaps i dont understand it properly. Please correct me if i dont.
Also am i right in thinking that Egals see ‘authority’ as a negetive thing. Please inform
Lin,
you said “Since there are no ‘roles’, only spiritual gifts and functions, I am not sure why having women gifted by the Holy Spirit would bother you?”
Do you believe that there are no specific positions of leadership within the church? What do you mean by functions?
Dave,
In regards to ‘mutual’ submission do you employ that meaning all submission passages. If so, how do you understand Hebrews 13:17. This passage shows a few things.
1. there ARE roles
2. there ARE leaders
3. there is submission to AUTHORITY
4. these leaders will give an account!!! beware those who lead out of false motives or ungodliness.
Thanks for the question Gab.
I believe that submission means submission wherever it is used. I think it is a good idea to look at it in other contexts to help us understand it. Hebrew 13:17 is a good example.
Heb 13:17 does not speak about authority (no such term is used), but it does demonstrate leadership (something the church needs) and submission to that leadership (as it has been provided for us by God).
If I was asked, “Does this leadership have any authority?”, I would say, “Yes, and that authority comes from God!”
Dear gab,
You asked:
I believe that there are no contradictions in this specific part of scripture plus this interpretation of the scripture does not contradict with other scriptures either.
You said:
Dave’s post was very good. There is absolutely no contradiction in the scriptures regarding women teaching the bible to men. Jesus is our “head” yet He never stops anyone from using their gifts for the benefit of the body. My husband is my “head” yet he never stops me from using my gifts for the benefit of men. In fact he encourages me. How could there possibly be a contradiction unless you can prove that Jesus’ place as head is to stop the body from ministry instead of supplying the body’s need to grow and minister to each other? This isn’t in the Scriptures so there is no contradiction.
You said:
Which part of these passages say that women are not allowed to teach the bible to men? It isn’t there.
Thanks! That is very kind of you.
Perhaps that would be so if God was ignorant of the future and knew nothing about man’s impending fall before He created all things. I happen to believe that God worked all things for His purposes and His glory even before He created man. There was nothing that surprised Him and His choosing to relate to us as Father was planned before the creation of man. The default wording is the masculine in the scriptures and of course this doesn’t mean that God is male. God is Spirit and He chose to relate to us as Father in the place of the failure of our first Father. In the same way Jesus relates to us as the last Adam as the one who gave all for us just as the first Adam failed us and went into rebellion against God. The entire issue speaks forth the Sovereignty of God and I am grateful for that.
Does this make sense?
I think you mean the “last” Adam. God is still our Father and there is no need for Him to change His relationship with us. Masculine terms in Hebrew and Greek do not mean male gender. This point is weak.
Thanks for asking! Before Eve was created God gave Adam the responsibility of guarding the garden. He became a “watchman on the wall” so to speak. It wasn’t a leadership that was needed because Eve was created to be a fully capable person who stood with Adam as his flesh and blood. Rather it was protection from the enemy for a person who had less knowledge than Adam did.
When God called to Adam it doesn’t mean that Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin. Adam was first created and had been given the responsiblity of watchman. The bible says that to whom much has been given much, much will be required. Adam had been given more knowledge of the Creator than Eve did and Adam was responsible for using that knowledge as protection. He failed and was held accountable for his failure as a watchman and for his rebellion against God.
If it is true that the complementarian position is correct, then we should have seen God ask Adam to account for both himself and Eve. However each person was accountable for themselves and their own sin. Adam was not accountable for Eve’s sin. He was only accountable for failing to give her the truth when she was being deceived.
God calls Adam’s sin as treason because the watchman on the wall was guilty of treason if he did not warn the city when danger was identified. God said about Adam’s sin:
Adam’s sin was treason against God because of his own sin and his failure as a watchman.
I hope this helps!
General observation: I’ll never understand why anyone thinks God rewarded Adam for failing to lead and protect by giving him a position or role of leadership and protection, or why Eve should be punished for being the victim of deception. Makes no sense at all.
“Do you believe that there are no specific positions of leadership within the church? What do you mean by functions?”
The word ‘office’ was added by the translators and because of this we tend to think of the Body in worldly structure descriptions. We think ‘someone has to be in charge’. We cannot think outside that worldly box mainly because of tradition.
The ‘leadership’ functions in the Body do not look like the worldsleadership. And I say this as one who spent 18 years as a corporate trainer in leadership and teams. So, I know worldly leadership principles. And I know cognative dissonance it has brought to the Body of Christ.
In the Body of Christ those who have ‘leadership’ are better described as servants. We would be more in line with the Word if we would describe ourselves as servants instead of leaders. Jesus said that the first would be last the last be first. When He put the little child on his lap in Matthew 18, he was describing not what we think of as children but in that society, children were lowly. As lowly as a servant in that society.
The functions are spiritual gifts. An over seer is the one who is spiritually mature. it is not a glamorous position. It should look like humility, love and service to others. They care for the souls in the Body. And they KNOW that Jesus Christ is in charge. Not them.
Think about it, for centuries, the church used the mddel of Monarchical government to operate. Now we use the business CEO model. Neither one is of Christ.
I am guilty of once buying into the business model for the Body. But God showed me that we are a ‘peculiar’ people and we are not to operate like the world. Born Again believers can meet and should
have the Holy Spirit to guide them. Where is the power of the Holy Spirit in our churches?
That should what we are striving for. Even the one with the most theological degree’s may not be as spiritually mature as a janitor. That is the beauty of the Body of Christ.
Hi Cheryl,
The reference to John 4:7 was Wallace’s choice and perhaps not one I’d have chosen to illustrate the point. More appropriate would have been something like 1Cor 7:1 or Matt 5:28.
It also strikes me as odd that Paul writes “I do not allow…” when advising Timothy. Elsewhere in the letter he’s used imperatives when outlining courses of action that Timothy ought to undertake (e.g. 1Tim 2:11; 3:10, 12; 4:11–16; 5:1, 3–4, 7, etc.). Although I see no reason why your reading is not possible, aren’t you arguing that Paul really means to say “do not allow that woman to teach that man…” or something similar? What we do have is not quite so clear, hence the exegetical difficulties.
True (although one example doesn’t really establish a pattern). However, in that passage Paul doesn’t use exactly the same language he does in 1Tim 2, so 1Cor doesn’t really prove much in that regard. As I said previously, there are less ambiguous ways of not naming an individual but making it clear that you are referring to a known individual.
In 1Tim 2:14 it seems quite possible to argue that the deictic centre is established by the aorist and the opening reference to Adam, and that the subsequent perfect verb should be read in reference to that (cf. Matt 26:72, 74; Mk 10:28; Mk 15:44; etc.). Further, I’d suggest that the repeated reference to deception in 1Tim 2:14 links Adam and the woman (as does the use of ἐξαπατάω in 1Tim 2:14 and ἀπατάω in LXX Gen 3:13).
Now I don’t think this is a compelling argument: the anaphoric article on γυνὴ in 1Tim 2:14 could feasibly refer back to either Εὕα in verse 13 or γυνὴ in verse 11. The proximity of Εὕα, the repetition of ‘Adam’, and the loose parallelism between vv. 13 and 14 favours the former, but the more likely link to v. 11 in the 3s verb in verse 15 may favour the latter.
My point is that I suspect that the text alone remains somewhat ambiguous and more information is required to disambiguate than grammar and syntax alone. It may be that the questions and issues you highlight at the beginning of your original post serve to push the balance of probabilities away from the complementation position somewhat, but I remain unconvinced that grammar and syntax alone are sufficient to resolve the debate.
Nonetheless, I think there are enough questions raised over the interpretation of this passage to suggest that basing any policy upon it alone would be ill advised.
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your extremely gracious reply.
You write:
Thanks for bringing up this point for this is one that I have also considered and I believe that the answer supports my position. Here is why. In chapter one Paul summarizes the reason that Timothy was left behind in Ephesus and that is to “remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,…”
Timothy has the command, he has the authority to carry out his mandate and apparently for a young man he has done a good job. The problem for Timothy comes in chapter two where a specific woman is among the ones whom Timothy is to stop teaching. Timothy is young (1 Tim. 4:12) and was encouraged by Paul not to be timid (2 Tim. 1:7) so it appears that because of his youth there were things where Timothy needed an extra push because there were areas where his timidity showed.
It would have been a difficult position for sure for Timothy to have to discipline someone else’s wife. Paul reminds Timothy that the situation that is apparently causing him some stress in Ephesus, the false teaching of one woman, is very much like the situation in the garden where the woman was deceived and her husband did not one single solitary thing to help her or to stop her from pursuing the harm that he knew was there.
So instead of telling Timothy just go ahead and stop this woman (there is nothing in the text that shows that she is teaching anyone else her error except for her husband), Paul gives Timothy the courage by saying that he, Paul, is the one who is taking over this situation and that he, Paul, is taking his Apostolic authority to stop her. Thus Paul says “I am not allowing…”
In this sticky situation of stopping another man’s wife when the husband himself has done nothing to stop her in her error, Timothy now can bring Paul’s command “Paul is not allowing…”. Do you see how this would give a special boast of courage to a timid youthful Timothy? Does it make sense that Timothy, who isn’t about to enjoy having to go to someone else’s wife in the presence of her silent husband, would receive courage that this isn’t something he is doing by his own say-so but by the command and by the authority of Paul?
It all makes so much sense to me. This was written to Timothy. No command was given to all men to stop all women. No godly teaching was being stopped here. I believe that if Timothy had not been so timid and had not struggled with how to stop a deceived woman, we would never have even heard about this situation in Ephesus. But God’s Word brings this to our attention and by careful examination we can see that there is hope for those who have been deceived and that we should not just cast them aside.
My own ministry involves dealing with all kinds of people in the cults and bringing them to faith in Christ. So many other people along with their pastors refuse to deal with Jehovah’s Witnesses because they do not believe that these people can be reached. I do not agree and the fruit of my own ministry has shown that working with the deceived is not fruitless. I spent 16 years counseling and disciplining former Jehovah’s Witnesses and I can testify that the deceived can come out of their deception and into faith in Christ.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 is even more precise than the passage in 1 Cor. where Paul doesn’t even identify the gender of the “one” who is in sin. We have much more to point to an individual woman in 1 Tim. 2 as Paul specifically gives the steps needed for her salvation. And note that she isn’t given over to satan as the man was in 1 Cor.
The possibility of the aorist referencing Adam is removed by Paul’s use of δέ in opposition to the non-deception of Adam. Since Adam cannot be said to have being in deception, (nor could he be right now in that place) it isn’t possible for the continuation of the transgression brought on by deception to flow back to Adam.
I agree. The woman is linked to Adam in that she is in the exact same situation with a silent husband. Paul’s application of the situation to the event of the very first deception is incentive for Timothy to act. Look what the silence of Adam (who was not deceived) caused all of us! It doesn’t matter that this woman’s husband isn’t deceived either. He is doing nothing at all to stop his wife’s deception and Timothy needs to take Paul’s authority and Paul’s command with him to intervene in a similar situation that is tied to the silence and inaction of Adam, the one who was not deceived. Timothy got the message and there is no doubt in my mind that the woman was saved and taken out of her deception because we never hear about her or her deception again.
The repetition of Adam along with the perfect tense of the continuing state of “the woman” shows that the situation is hopeless without intervention. Adam was useless as a savior. Adam did nothing and this woman’s husband is an “Adam”. Without intervention she has no hope, but with an intervention, she will be saved…if…
There is no doubt that verse 15 cannot refer to Eve since it has actions required of one who is alive. It also has a promise for future salvation and none of this can possibly be linked to a dead woman. Therefore verse 15 “she” has a direct link back to verse 14 “the woman” which has a link back to the stopping of teaching of “a woman” because of deception. For those who are willing to map this out, it becomes increasingly clear that deception is the reason, silence of the man (who is not deceived) is the exceptional problem that causes the need for Paul’s command and the solution in the end for a living person in need of salvation is encouraging.
While we cannot know all the details, we can be sure of one thing…that Eve is not the “she” from verse 15 and so the grammar is specific enough to tell us that “she” is not the same thing as “they” and deception is not the issue for all women. The specific grammar is what caused me to have my eyes opened and it gives enough of a boundary around the prohibition that it cannot be applied to all women. The fact that “she” must have someone to refer back to should cause all of us to care enough to trace the noun back to understand this very difficult passage.
Thank you for saying this! I agree but I would go one step further. To take this passage that is “clearly” not about all women and use it to establish a policy that forbids women from teaching men is not only ill-advised, but it is sinning against our dear sisters in Christ whom Jesus has set in ministry by His granting them equal status in their inheritance as “sons” and by gifting them with His gifts and His Holy Spirit’s power for service.
One day we will all stand before the Lord Jesus and give an account of ourselves. I would not want to be of the ones looking Jesus in the face and telling him that they stopped his godly women from service by a universally unestablished “law” from one verse ripped from its context in a private letter to Timothy. No doubt these men will be ashamed before Christ that they did not rightly divide the Word of Truth.
It is my strong desire to be an “ezer” with love to these men to help them look outside their tradition. God has graciously gifted me with logic and strong reasoning to question the position of this silencing of God’s women “sons”. If He allows me, I would like to continue this work with love for the Church and a heart of a peace-maker who wants to see the Church united in God’s love.
I agree with you Martin, we do not have enough context to be SURE what Paul meant to Timothy. The way I phrase this is that I am not Timothy.
Cheryl gives a possible way to understand it, my way is slightly different; but it only takes 1 possible egal way to negate the claim of non-egals that these verses are clear and simply need to be obeyed.
Cheryl could you please answer some of my queries.
1. Have you considered the only other NT use of the greek word for ‘child bearing’ which is actually found in the same epistle 1 Timothy 5:14-15.
2. In this other passage the reference is linked to being decieved by Satan, which is interesting as this is what Paul is dealing with in 2:14.
3. The term ‘sozo’ which you said “This Greek word used here for “saved” is only ever used by Paul in his epistles in reference to spiritual salvation.” In the gospels it is generally used to mean ‘to be healed’ but i realise this is not the Pauline corpus. But have you also considered the following passages…
1 Corinthians 3:15: “If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire”;
1 Corinthians 7:16: “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”;
1 Timothy 4:16: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you”;
2 Timothy 4:18: “The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.”
I don’t think we can convincingly conclude that these references are refering to spiritual salvation but perhaps also ‘spiritual protection’.
All of this seems an acceptable interpretation of verse 15, that Paul is concerned for the womens spiritual protection by her husband, which is what failed in the garden as referced in verse 14. A few other references which highlight Pauls spiritual concern…
1. 1 Timothy 3:6
2. 1 Tim 5:14-15
3. 2 Tim 2:26
4. 1 Tim 6:9-10
Hey Gab,
Cheryl has hit the road for a couple of weeks but was hoping to log in if she has internet access. It might take a little while to get back to you!
Dave
gab, it says she will be saved by childbearing. Do you seriously believe that at least one women in Ephesus was given a work for salvation? Not to mention all women for all time? Is this really what you believe Paul meant?
That negates Faith Alone. It negates the precious blood of the cross. 5:14 also contradicts what Paul said about staying single being best. It would mean that Mary M was in sin and could not be saved.
You are advocating an interpretation that goes against everything Paul taught and hated about what the Judaizers were teaching…a works salvation.
gab, what about Christian women who cannot bear children? Seems a very cruel God to make such a command. If we are being literal it means Child birth. So adoption won’t do. It means women are saved through bearing children.
If sozo does not mean saved here then we have another problem. Many many women died in childbirth. It was a huge risk and happened all the time. What do we make of that if the passage in 2:15 is referring to her being healed or rescued from something besides eternal damnation? Is Paul making promises to all women that are not true?
I guess women are expendable in the patriarchal world as far as scripture is concerned.
Hi Gab,
I am on the road right now so I will answer your questions as I can away from all of my resources. Thank you so much for asking these questions. They are very good ones!
You asked:
The “child bearing” in 1 Tim. 5:14 is not the same. In 1 Tim 2:15 it is a definite noun and in 1 Timothy 4:14 child bearing is a verb. There is not a match here. Your reference is obviously about the normal practice of all widows remarrying and bearing children and the reference in 1 Tim. 2:15 is one definite child and the bearing through the woman = the Messiah (a noun).
You said:
Very perceptive! This is another very strong point to show that Paul’s context is about false teaching and false teachers. The complete context again supports my view. Thanks for bringing up the verse.
Under your question number 3, sozo is once again shown to be spiritual salvation. CBMW itself admits that Paul always uses “sozo” in the epistles for spiritual salvation (this is found in their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), but it is good to look at some commentaries that also accept the same understanding.
1 Cor. 3:15 Spence-Jones, H. D. M.: The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Corinthians.
1 Cor. 7:16. Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
1 Tim. 4:16 Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.
2 Tim 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and save me for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen
“save” here is future, indicative, active and is again referencing spiritual salvation. See Vincent, Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament:
Actually we don’t even need to argue about whether spiritual salvation is Paul’s meaning since the main opponent to women’s freedom to minister to men in teaching (CBMW) has already conceded that Paul always refers to spiritual salvation. For those who disagree perhaps they can take it up with CBMW. I don’t have the reference with me right now as I am on the road, but anyone who would like the reference is welcome to email me. My email address is on my blog site.
I won’t take the time to look up the rest of the references for you as it is my husband’s birthday today and he would like me to spend time with him. We are again away from email tomorrow for most of the day as we are traveling again. I think you will find that good biblical commentaries agree with CBMW’s take on Paul’s reference to sozo for spiritual salvation.
I hope this helps! Thanks for taking the time to prod me. I am very happy to answer questions. After all I do believe that an argument that is faithful to the text is able to answer questions and those who cannot answer the hard questions need to ask themselves why.
Blessings!
Cheryl
Lin, i think you may have mis-understood what i was saying. I posed the question to Cheryl to see what her thoughts were on ‘sozo’ always meaning salvation. What i suggested was perhaps ‘sozo’ here means spiritual protection NOT salvation. Therefore i don’t believe i was making a statement against faith alone but rather a women is spirtually protected when she fulfills her role as mother, wife etc, and that when a woman preaches for example she steps out of the protective area into the area of the deciever, as related in verse 14 to where Eve lost her ‘protection’ when she was deceived. Perhaps it is also cruel of God to command us to ‘be frituful and multiply’ because we know that not all people can. But now im just being combative
All this said, i am not saying that this is my interpretation but wanted to see what Cheryl thought. In fact i know it is an interpretation that some people in CBMW hold (although they are a minority). There are many different interpretations on things even within both camps. It is good to assess all of them.
Cheryl,
For someone away from her resources you certainly used a lot of resources. I’d hate to see your library
I would like to correct you on saying that all in CBMW hold to ‘sozo’ meaning salvation- their is a minority who don’t. But thanks for taking the time to assess the proding.
It is good to search the scriptures for the truth.
gab,
Were both the serpent and Eve deceivers in your opinion or just the serpent? And do you agree with Paul on this matter?
Did Eve preach to Adam and what sermon?
Biblicaly, did God command you or Adam and Eve to multiply?
Last comment for the night…
And it is also good to stay within the scriptures OWN boundaries.
Hi Kathy,
I like your rhetoric technique even though i dont understand why you are using it.
I do agree with Paul on this matter. Eve was the only one to be decieved but Adam did listen to her Gen 3:17
My preaching comment was not an exegesis of the passage-don’t read me wrong on this. I was using it as an example of stepping beyond the protection of her husband. Perhaps i didn’t make that clear enough.
You seemed to have missed my attempted joke with the command!
One last thing. I dont see my position as being outside the boundaries of scripture, nor do i find it helpful to insult me. I am truly seeking to know the truth of scripture in order to glorify my fatherly heaven. I am not driven by man made motives, in fact i didnt grow up in the church to be taught this supposed heresy- i only wish to know the truth of the bible.
” What i suggested was perhaps ’sozo’ here means spiritual protection NOT salvation. Therefore i don’t believe i was making a statement against faith alone but rather a women is spirtually protected when she fulfills her role as mother, wife etc, and that when a woman preaches for example she steps out of the protective area into the area of the deciever, as related in verse 14 to where Eve lost her ‘protection’ when she was deceived.”
I am glad you are only suggesting it!
) No matter how this verse is spinned to mean role/protection, it still means that it would be a work. An earning of salvation which is by faith alone.
And Cheryl is right about childbearing being a noun in 2:15.
You wrote:
” I was using it as an example of stepping beyond the protection of her husband.”
But that would mean they are SPIRITUAL implications and the husband her spiritual guide. Surely you cannot mean that? Women, including married women, have equal access to Jesus Christ and are part of the priesthood. There is no layer between her and Jesus Christ.
“She will be saved through the childbearing” maps for me to Jesus being the special child, this is the only way I can make sense of it.
Hi gab,
You said:
I am back home now and looking at my bookcases of books. I have been collecting for years because I feel that research from the theological sources is very important. I have some of my resources on my husband’s computer and I was able to refer to them while I was away.
You also wrote:
You are so welcome!
I would like to correct the thought that all in CBMW hold to the thought that ‘sozo’ means salvation. What I meant was that the official CBMW on their position does say this. In the Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on page 192, Chapter 9 written by Douglas Moo, he writes:
So I think my point stands that the position produced by CBMW in their guidebook on the complementarian position says that Paul’s meaning of “sozo” always refers to salvation in the theological sense. I happen to agree with CBMW on this point.
Amen! Yes, I couldn’t agree with you more! I myself refuse to hold to a position just because it belongs to the egalitarian position. There are times that I have disagreed with egalitarians and I have told them so because I can see that the position disagrees with the Scriptures. I really don’t care how many doctoral degrees an egalitarian has, if the position makes the Scriptures contradict, then I will not accept it.
I believe very strongly that as women we need to search the Scriptures very deeply to know the truth on God’s view of our use of His gifts for if there truly is a law against our use of these gifts, we need to hold to that and obey. But if our understanding has been mistaken by tradition which takes verses out of their context, then we need to boldly search to find out what the verses mean in their complete context for we do not want to act in a prejudicial way towards our brothers in Christ and withhold God’s gifts from them. I believe that we will be hurting Jesus if we fail to serve our brothers.
It may not seem so important to men because there are no Scriptures that appear to make men as living in sin if they listen to women teach, but since we are the ones challenged to know the Scriptures concerning whether we are in “sin” or not, we need to be careful.
It is my heartfelt desire to be one of those who is diligent and is approved by God as a workman. I desire to rightfully divide the Word of Truth so that what I teach and learn from the Scriptures will not bring me shame and will benefit all those who God has given me.
I believe the bottom line is that we are to love one another. Those who love their brothers will want to share of their best with them. When we withhold what we have to offer, it is not an act of love. I do not believe that it is a biblical mandate for us to worry that something might be a sin because it benefits a brother in Christ. This is not God’s way. God is a God of consistency. He is a God of Justice and Mercy and He is the One who is the giver of our gifts. May the Lord Jesus be praised through each and every one of us as we diligently search His Word for the consistent Truth that will stand every challenge!
gab,
One other thing. You said:
This is certainly what many comps are teaching but it is important to test these kinds of teachings by God’s Word.
Eve did not “step outside” of Adam’s protection. Adam was indeed instructed to protect the garden, but there is nothing in the Scripture that gives us the idea that Eve had to ask Adam for permission with everything she did because he was her “protector”. His protection of the garden was to be in his actions, not in hers.
So when Eve was there speaking to the serpent, she had no idea that he was lying. There was nothing illegal about talking to the animals (what an amazing thing that this one talked, eh?) and no law that disallowed her from evaluating the facts of a conversation. She was a free moral agent and could speak without having to have permission and could eat without asking her husband for permission. In fact there doesn’t seem to be anything that Eve was commanded to ask permission from Adam before she could participate. So how exactly did she “step outside” Adam’s protection?
She didn’t….he did. Adam is the one that failed to protect her from the lie. He knew the truth. She believed the lie of the one who seemed so sincere. After all the fruit looked so good…how could it be bad? The serpent gave her a different explanation for the prohibition and it appeared to Eve that God knew the truth but He was withholding His best from her so that she would not experience all that He had. So the prohibition was not really a prohibition that would cause her death. It was a pathway to Godhood. She believed this lie. Adam did not.
In her place of deception she took of the fruit just like she had taken of every other fruit. She didn’t ask permission because she didn’t need Adam’s permission to eat. She didn’t step outside his protection.
Adam heard her speaking to the serpent (Genesis 3:17)and he saw her being deceived. He heard the lie…and he said nothing. Adam was the one who stepped outside of his place as one who had been commanded to guard the garden. It was because he knew the truth about God and it was his knowledge that kept him safe from deception that made him the perfect candidate to be a watchman. The watchman knows the truth and shares the truth for our protection.
Adam, the unfaithful watchman failed in his mission. He sinned in such a horrible manner that he stood by and watched a mere serpent kill his precious wife through deception. How loving was that?
Adam then had the audacity to blame Eve! Adam, the one who knew the truth and who wasn’t deceived, blamed the one who innocently believed the lie! And have we taken the place of another accuser of Eve? God didn’t accuse her of deceiving Adam. God didn’t accuse her of lying about Him or failing to defend God in the first place. She is the one who spoke up while Adam was silent. She was also the one who became deceived while Adam remained silent beside her. She was innocently taken in by the lie.
I believe that just as we have by tradition blamed the woman in the garden accusing her of “stepping outside” of Adam’s protection when the fault was his and not hers, so we continue today to blame women for using their God-given gifts for the benefit of their brothers in Christ. We speak of them as sinners while God calls them faithful and beloved servants.
Are there other areas that we have been deceived by man’s tradition and the lies of the serpent? Yes, I think there are many other areas. What will help us? God’s Word is the antidote for error. We need to keep our noses in His Word and study it to show ourselves approved. We need to ask Him to reveal His truth through the pages of His Bible.
I then choose to believe God and I do not trust the protection of a mere man. I will study God’s word for myself because I do not want to be deceived. I want God’s way and God’s truth and I will give myself wholly to this task. Indeed traditions of men are lies unless they line up with God’s Word in context within the inspired words and the inspired grammar and with no contradictions.
“Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”
Quote from Martin Luther and seconded by Cheryl Schatz!
gab,
One other thing…I do believe you. I believe that you sincerely desire to know the truth of God’s Word. I also believe that God honors that desire and He will guide you into all truth as you continue to seek and honor Him.
Keep up that good work!
Hi Cheryl
Just a quick querie- are you suggesting that Eve didn’t sin because she was so innocently decieved? What scripture do you use to show that Adam knew it was wrong and eve didn’t?
I don’t see any indication in Genesis to show that Adam knew any better than Eve. Eve quoted what God had told them to the serpent. God told them not to touch and she did. I see the passage this way- a total reversal of the creation order. Adam was indeed the watchman to protact his wife. They were both in dominion over the animals. However Eve listened to an animal, and then Adam listened to his wife failing to protect her- i.e total reversal of roles in the garden. Does this help understand my position. Could you point me to where you have come to your conclusions. Thanks
The woman was a deceived sinner, the man a deliberate sinner and the serpent a deceiving sinner.
They all sinned but the consequences were different for each.
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
The man was charged to work/till the garden and to guard/watch the garden. He failed, this was a sin of omission, the first sin in the garden.
gab,
No, I am not suggesting that Eve didn’t sin. She was deceived into her position of sin. I think that Don has quite adequately stated the fact about the three kinds of sinners. He also beat me to the punch by giving 1 Timothy 2:14 that shows that Adam was not deceived.
The Scriptures that shows that Eve was deceived are:
Adam was not deceived therefore he knew that the serpent was not telling the truth. If Adam didn’t know the truth, then he too would have been deceived. However, Paul tells us that Adam was not deceived and Adam confirms this by not blaming the serpent for deceiving him.
Paul alludes to this knowledge in his reference to the creation account in Genesis when he says that it was the first one created who was not deceived. Well, what does the first one created have to do with not being deceived? All one needs to do is go back to Genesis to see two fascinating facts.
Just before God created Adam there was no shrub or plant of the field because none had sprouted yet (Gen. 2:5) because there was not yet any rain on the earth. So when Adam was created he was able to see a bare planet without vegetation. God had already created the plants but they were still seeds in the ground because they were without water.
After Adam’s creation God planted the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8) and caused the trees to grow in such a way that there was mature growth and mature fruit before Adam’s eyes and before Eve was created that same day. Some Bibles seem to imply that the garden “had been created” before Adam but this is not in the original Hebrew of the passage. For the exact grammar of the passage I to the book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics” edited by Robert D. Bergen, a work of the Seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew held in Dallas, Texas, in 1993 a gathering of 90 scholars with about 60 of these being working translators members of Wycliff Bible Translators and other societies.
In chapter 5 under the issue of the Plurperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol, Buth shows that Genesis 2:8, 19 cannot be shown to be a past tense as the Hebrew grammar is a normal sequential wayyiqtol verb.
What this all means is that in the Hebrew the garden of Eden is created after Adam’s creation and the animals from Genesis 2:19 were formed and brought to Adam. The creation of the garden was sequential…after Adam. The creation of the animals in 2:19 was also sequential. They were created after Adam.
I believe that the animals created after Adam were the female mates to the animals that were created previously (not unlike Eve who was created at a separate time from her mate) but whether they were female animals or not, the fact is that Adam was privileged as the only on the earth at that time to be the only person in all of human history to have seen part of creation as the work of the Creator’s hands.
It follows that Adam was not deceived to think that he could be like the Creator because he saw the Creator in action and he understood without fail that he and Eve were the work of the Creator’s hands and the Creator God was unique. What an education Adam had, eh?
Eve on the other hand saw none of this. By the time that she was created, everything else was already finished. She did not have this special knowledge of the Creator that kept her safe from the deception of the serpent. And she truly was deceived and no longer believed that she would die. She believed that she was going to be just like God.
This is right. She did disobey God and this is a sin. But she sinned because she was deceived to no longer believe that eating the fruit was a sin. She had knowledge to begin with but her knowledge was challenged and subsequently her first knowledge was overcome. She came into the position of one who was acting in ignorance and unbelief just as Paul himself acted in ignorance (see 1 Timothy 1:13).
There was a creation order (Adam was created first as the one who would be the source of his wife – she came from part of his body). However the creation order is not tied into a “role”. Gab, if you think there is a “role” listed as less than a full ruler listed for either one of them, please show me the verse that you base this on.
You said that there was a reversal of roles. How so? Where is a role given to Eve? And where is a role given to Adam that Eve was told did not belong to her? Please explain from the Scripture how Eve took away a “role” given only to Adam. Thanks!
Other than what I have already written above, the key passage is Hosea 6:7 which lists Adam’s sin as treacherous and a silent watchman has the blood of the innocent required from his hand (Ezekiel 33):
Adam knew the truth. Adam experienced God as Creator and Adam knew that he could not become God. Yet Adam as the watchman of the garden remained silent and allowed his wife to be captured by the enemy. God required her blood at the hands of Adam and God calls him to account by saying:
Notice that God said “because” and then God lists two things. The first cause of the curse is because Adam listened to the “voice” of his wife. When is it that Eve spoke and Adam only listened? The only record of such a thing is when Adam listened to his wife’s words to the serpent and Adam merely listened. The watchman was required to sound the alarm. Adam listened and did nothing and Eve was subsequently left to be deceived and she lost her battle because of this.
Does this help?