The rest of the story – 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and Matt Slick

September 30, 2007 — 185 Comments

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:

1. 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

2. Identified the subject of the prohibition – “a woman” 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” or “because” and 1 Timothy 2:14 says “and” thus connecting 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”. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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 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 www.strivetoenter.com/wim. For any other use, please contact me at

MM Outreach email

mmoutreach

Cheryl

Posts

185 responses to The rest of the story – 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and Matt Slick

  1. Thanks for your hard work and insight into this puzzling passage of Scripture. I agree with you that 1 Tim 2:15 is critical to understanding 1 Tim 2:12. So let us strive to not take a verse out of context (and you help us here to avoid this pitfall), as then it can become a pretext for almost anything.

  2. Thank you Don!

    If anyone knows of a place to post my article or a link to this article on other blogs/web sites, etc to help get the message out, it would be greatly appreciated!

    Blessings!
    Cheryl

  3. Cheryl, this is a helpful post. I have linked to it at the new Complegalitarian blog.

  4. Great!! Thanks Wayne!

  5. THE KEY PHRASE IS “A WOMAN” MEANING “ONE” WOMAN! WE SEE A PATTERN HERE FROM GOD ON GRAMMER!

    Luke 8:43
    And A WOMAN having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
    Luke 8:42-44 (in Context) Luke 8 (Whole Chapter)

    Luke 13:11
    And, behold, there was A WOMAN which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
    Luke 13:10-12 (in Context) Luke 13 (Whole Chapter)

    John 8:3
    And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him A WOMAN taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
    John 8:2-4 (in Context) John 8 (Whole Chapter)

  6. Matt doesn’t even want to explain about what paul said!

    We are all guilty before God and need Christ! We see from ALL of scripture on Saul/Paul how God dealt with him. He knew how saul got to that point and only God knew how to correct him an make him Paul!

    Now on Tim.
    Adam and Eve were Husband an Wife. There was a problem in that church that was just like what happen in the garden. Adam knew his wife didn’t have the whole thing yet he let his untaught wife be tricked! That man or husband needs to school her his wife in truth of God’s word because he (a man/the husband) is educated the wife or woman is not and needs to learn.

    He (matt) was very rude, he didn’t want to listen to you but because it was on the radio he “tried”/”Pretend” to be understanding but wasn’t. Matt sounded like a big bully and then stated to attack You as a person instead of the issue! I Don’t find matt answer any good!

    as for (a woman) the woman would have to ask meaningful questions about her error so she can be corrected!

  7. When paul told Timothy to “Silence” her it was just on her false teaching, not a total silence, she could still say hello and how are you and asks meaningful questions, quoting the false error she was taught then being silence to receive the correcting of Truth, just like how we learned in high school today.

    And Give an update on her even let her share to the church how she has learned The Faith and even thank Paul & Timothy and God for correcting her! What a testimony for all churches!

    No mention of them else were in scripture, so maybe this matter/ sitution in time was corrected! Just like Adam & Eve by there actions they put faith in God. Adam calling the woman Eve meaning Life or life bearer, putting faith in the prophesy. Eve praising God for giving birth. In the orig. Herbrew the wording is such that she must have throught cain was the promise seed but as we know time proved he wasn’t. Put the bottom line is Adam & Eve were saved. Plus God killed an animal (Must have been a Lamb) an clothed them BOTH.

    I hope this understanding helps.

  8. John 8:3
    And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him A WOMAN taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
    John 8:2-4 (in Context) John 8 (Whole Chapter)

    notice the woman is brought to be judged or killed by stoning yet were is the man? Under the law BOTH woman & man were stoned to death for adultery not just one sex! It goes to show the pharisees and we also see this today, how far off they were with God and his Word, that they just wanted to use the scripture/bible to control people and make it say things it doesn’t like matt was trying to do! But if you don’t know your bible people will try an get away with stuff like this, history repeats itself! Matt sounded like a pharisee, I got a flash back of the JW’s when I heard him on the radio clip!

  9. On the way Greek works, there is a definite article (in English “the”) but there is no indefinite article (in English “a/an”). If there is a noun like gune (woman), then it MIGHT be definite, it might be indefinite, it might be best translated with no article at all, and it even might be describing a group with a property (not with gune per se, but with other nouns). This is a judgment call of the translator based on other clues. A similar judgment call is made on whether gune should be translated as woman or wife, based on other clues.

    Cheryl has given her reasons why she would translate as she did, which I find very persuasive. I do not find the male hierarchicalists reasons for their understanding anywhere near as persuasive.

  10. A good example of a word describing a group is the of-mistranslated “huios” when it appears with another noun. For example, what it typically translated “the sons of Israel” should really be “Israelites”; it doesn’t mean only the males. (stole that from Dr. Nyland’s notes)

    But it does point out an inherent problem with the old “plain meaning” argument. Translators make a lot of judgment calls, and the cults take great advantage of this. And we know that mere consensus is not always dependable, as in the case of whether Junia was a female or not. Consensus often comes from shared prejudices and not acknowledged scholarship or attestation.

    As far as I know, every scholar believes Paul’s meaning in this passage is “a woman” and “a man”, and I’m not aware of any lack of attestation or scholarly doubt about it. If there were disagreement over the articles I’d think at least one comp. would have jumped on it.

  11. The JPS English version of the Tanakh makes that simple claim that it is “a translation from the Hebrew”. It makes no claim to the “THE OFFICIAL JEWISH translation” or even “the best translation”, just that it is one possible faithful translation, and they (at least implicitly) admit that other faithful translations are possible.

    The same is true for the NT.

    On “huios” it does mean “sons” as a primary meaning, it is just that “sons” can include daughters, that is, the male plural forms are used for a group that has at least one male in it (like 1950’s English), so the group might be all male or it might not be, one needs to look for other clues. If there are no other clues, then one makes a best guess. The same is true for woman/wife, one looks for other clues and sometimes reasonable people can disagree.

  12. Cheryl,

    I have heard, read, studied, researched, and picked apart the langage of 1 Tim. 2 with it’s possible meaning from every imaginable point of view from every imaginable scholar I could find over the past 40 years.

    No one, anywhere I’ve read or heard has said it any better or more clearly FROM THE TEXT than have you. You have gone exceedingly above and beyond without loosing character or cool. Whatever position one were to hold on this passage, [your’s has captured me] you will be held in high esteem by all who appreciate good biblical interpretation and grace. You have demonstrated both. Thank you.

  13. Paul Burleson,

    I totally agree with you! On the opposing view I find they read so much into the text and make it say something that just isn’t there. When I saw the video “Women In Ministry…” I was like that’s it! Str8 from the TEXT alone! Scripture is Light, so Light reveals Light and exposes what’s in the Dark! Scripture said we have to righty divide the Word of Truth, an Cheryl has done that.

    In my spirit I see Cheryl teaching as Humble,Meek,Truthful. The otherside I see Pride,Anger,Bondage, unreasonableness etc. They sound like Pharisees, I’m not doubting there salvation pre-say but it makes me wonder sometimes.

    We read in scripture how the legalist were spying out there ( THE EARLY CHRUCH) Liberty! Alot had to do with the women! When they saw them Learning,Teaching,Preaching equally with the men, they wanted to stop it! That’s my understanding of scripture!
    It’s funny Jesus Never told a women she can’t learn,teach,preach! Or that she has a different funtion!

  14. Pastor Paul,
    What amazing words of confidence you have given me! I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

    Don,
    Thank you for being persuaded from scripture alone!

    Michael,
    I am so glad that I was able to help you and that you could recognize truth because your heart was open to see truth.

    Dusman,
    Thank you for the link and as a video editor myself, let me say I loved the picture!

    To all of you,
    I am humbled by your gracious words to me. I think I really needed that after being called a heretic!

    Blessings,
    Cheryl

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. I just signed up and posted my comment on Matt’s site Defending My/Our dear sister Cheryl! What I posted is below because I have a feeling he won’t post my comment! You are all my witnesses to what I have typed so it can’t be cut apart or taken out of Context!

    Cheryl is NOT a “heretic”! You shouldn’t be a Pastor Matt you were so rude on the radio. I can sense alot of Pride,Anger, Unreasonableness in you,Quality’s a Teacher/Leader should NEVER be found in!

    You like to read into scripture and make it say things it doesn’t. I don’t know you from Adam and when I heard you on the radio for the first time,your attitude was so pagan I was shocked that your are a pastor!

    An you won’t even let her come back to explain Her side of the issue even after she agreed to your
    “restrictions”! You want one word yes & no answers but the Yes & No answers Musted be explained and it’s CONTEXT so we can understand why a answer is Yes & No! You kept cutting off Cheryl.

    If you post this comment that will suprise me! I’ve heard your not posting any postive comments on Cheryl on your blog only people who agree with your side?

    Why not present BOTH views an let the person (Christian)/listern make there own choice on this matter with the help of The Holy Spirit. The way you hidden things like comments etc on your blog and your reading your own throughts/words into scripture, your no different then a cult!

    Thanks for reading, Oh an remember your going to have to answer to Christ on this matter!All will be judged!

  19. Can you do a study on ACTS 15, because on Matt’s site this woman was using acts 15 to teach that only males were there. All one has to do is look up the greek and see if the words “Men” “Brothers” etc also mean/ include women/female/humanbeings! Also we need the Context of the full matter if there were only men there. Because that Cha15 in acts doesn’t say anything about a woman/women can’t teach! It saids nothing of the kind, so what if all men were there, it doesn’t explain the issue. I’ll have to look up the greek now an get back on this. But first i must pray for the leadinf of the spirit.

  20. Here is my quick research to keep things short, sweet and truthful

    The word “brethren” in ACTS 15

    The New Testament Greek Lexicon
    Strong’s Number: 80 a)delfo/v
    Original Word Word Origin
    a)delfo/v from (1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
    Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
    Adelphos ad-el-fos’
    Parts of Speech TDNT
    Noun Masculine 1:144,22

    Definition
    1.a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
    2.having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
    3.any fellow or man
    4.a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
    5.an associate in employment or office
    6.brethren in Christ
    a)his brothers by blood
    b)all men
    c)apostles
    d)Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

    Translated Words
    KJV (346) – brethren, 226; brother, 113; brother’s, 6; brother’s way, 1;
    NAS (173) – believing husband, 1; brethren, 13; brother, 111; brother’s, 8; brothers, 40;

    So the word “brethren” IN context here is christians male & female!
    It doesn’t mean just Male Gender But can apply to BOTH sexes/gender!

    The whole Cha 15 once read: Context is that this is a mixed crowd Unbelievers( Men) & Believers (Brethren) & Old & Young, Male & Female
    This is just on one word “Brethren” from cha. 15 of Acts!

    This in noway is a full study on this Cha or on the full greek word for word. But this is a quick look and one word lookup in the greek on “Brethren!
    Even the word “elder” in the greek is not just male only use but can also be female!

    Why does the NAS bible cut it down an refur to women only 1 time and applyed to Male many times. Yet the KJV has it right 64 times elder woman!!!! only one time for old man! It’s like the tranlators of NAS fliped the KJV tranlation use! Now which bible are we going to believe, I stick mostly with KJV!

    Translated Words
    KJV (67) – elder, 64; elder woman, 1; eldest, 1; old man, 1;
    NAS (67) – elder, 3; elders, 57; men of old, 1; old men, 1; older, 1; older man, 1; older ones, 1; older women, 1; women, 1;

  21. I made a mistake sorry of the number of times the word elder is used on women!

    only once for woman but 64 times “elder” is used an means a old person man or woman!

    Notice that the NAS “ADDS” more male phrases to it’s use yet both NAS & KJV use it the same number of times 67 throughout scripture!

    This mistake that has now been corrected still doesn’t change the fact that there must have be women there an or women elders too!

    The KJV bible does use the word more correctly!

  22. The NAS has 3 male phrases for the use of elder an 2 for female

    Yet KJV equally one phrase for Male one for Female!

    NAS elder, 3; elders, 57 times used

    KJV elder, 64; times used

    why add extra phrase’s? Why does NAS bible use a total of 9 phrases and KJV has a total use of 4 phrases on the word “Elder”.

    Did the tranlators of the NAS want to exclude women somehow by adding in more meanings? Just a Throught

  23. 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!

  24. On Acts 15, in Greek the male plural form for a group can be used when at least one member of the group is a male. So a group of “brothers” may or may not include “sisters”. One needs to try to discern from other clues what is the intent. This is just the way Greek works. So that person’s rationale on CARM simply falls apart as being conclusive.

    For example, Luke clarifies that some of the disciples of Jesus were women. Certainly some of the people in the Jerusalem church were women.

    The sad part is the one pushing for gender-based limitation are following the Pharisee Legalists’ position, but even then they are not heretics. That is, one can be wrong in one’s understanding of many things the Bible teaches yet not be a heretic.

  25. Cheryl,

    Thanks for sharing your conclusion with us. I have not listened to the MP3 that you provided, I will be loading it onto my MP3 player and will listen to it on my way to work. But your conclusion is very interesting. I will be researching and considering some of the points that you have presented.

    Also, I am sure you have not forgotten, but the author of Hebrews does tell his readers that they all should be “teaching” by now. But they are still on the milk. I suppose some would say that he was only writing to men, but for some reason I doubt that.

    Thanks again!
    God’s Glory,
    Lew A

    The Pursuit Online Store

  26. Reading through this, I have such respect for you, Cheryl, to take such persecution with grace! I never heard of Matt Slick, but I have felt oppressed as a Christian woman. And the verse you are discussing above is one of the “clubs”.
    I prayed and asked God to show me what 1Tim 2:11-15 means.
    I want to share where that went. I am not as knowledgable as you in the greek, but it does not seem incompatible with your findings:
    This is the rendering which I think reflects the meaning of the verse:
    She (Eve/woman) will be saved (restored) through bearing the child if they (women) continue in…
    How could it mean Christian “salvation” because it is dependant upon “they”?
    “will be restored” is in the future.
    Restored HOW?
    I think it refers to the verse before (see below)
    I think in any woman who allows Jesus to be formed in her and “continues in…” Eve/woman is restored to the garden state before the transgression: garden intimacy, partaking of the “tree of life”/Jesus, garden dominion/authority.
    Quote:
    1Tim 2:14-15 interlinear
    Adam not was-deceived the but woman being-deceived in transgression has-become;
    She-will-be-saved but through the childbearing if they-remain in faith and love and holiness with sensibleness
    Taken with my understanding of 1Tim 2:14, “THE CHILD bearing”/Christ being formed in me
    (see also Gal 4:19-5:1 and Rev 12 – parallel passages on the childbirthing)
    this interpretation would resolve the appearance that the curse on Eve seems to exempt single women:
    Quote:
    Ge 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

  27. Lew,

    You are welcome! If I can help you in any way, please let me know.

    Regarding Hebrews 5:12-14, the Greek is plural masculine but this does not mean that women are not in the group. The masculine grammar is the default position with generic passages. For example:

    Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
    Matthew 16:25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

    “Anyone” and “whoever” are singular masculine. Are only men allowed to come after Jesus? Are only men required to take up their cross and following Christ? No, not at all. All of the salvation passages are in the masculine grammatical form, but all of them include both men and women. If we exclude women in Hebrews 5:12-14 regarding the believers who should be teachers, then is it true that the solid food is only for men and only men can be mature? Hardly! These passages are regarding both men and women and women too should be striving to rightly divide the word of truth:

    2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

    If we leave the accurate handling of the word of God to the men alone, then we are leaving women as children relying on the men for maturity instead of working hard to be mature themselves in the truth.

  28. I see it as a promise to any woman, that she can be restored to garden intimacy with Christ, eating from the Tree of Life/Jesus and Garden Authority/Dominion which was undermined in the fall (for all women, not just married women). Personally, I was a christian woman guilty of “husband idolatry”. It is not until I repented from that and put Jesus in His rightful place as my “ONE HUSBAND*” that I am enjoying liberty in Christ.
    2Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to *ONE HUSBAND*, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
    3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

  29. It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.

  30. Charis,

    Thank you for your kind words!

    It is always good to talk about different interpretations and how they fit in the context. I agree with what you said that women often are guilty of putting their husband over and above Christ. And we all (men and women) can have our minds corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

    Regarding your thoughts about “a woman” as being all women who can be restored to the garden intimacy with Christ, this view has some problems.

    You said:

    “She (Eve/woman) will be saved (restored) through bearing the child if they (women) continue in…
    How could it mean Christian “salvation” because it is dependant upon “they”?”

    The fact is that good hermeneutics requires us to check out the meaning for “saved” to see how Paul has used this elsewhere. Paul never ever used this word in his epistles to mean anything else but biblical salvation. We may be confused about what he is actually saying in verse 15, but we still have to be consistent.

    The basic meaning of the verb sozo is to rescue from peril, to protect, keep alive. Sozo involves the preservation of life, either physical or spiritual. There are two clues that Paul meant spiritual salvation. The first clue is that he does not use this word in any other way in his epistles. The second clue is that he ties it in with “the childbearing”. It is a definite noun. What one child is tied in with salvation? The only answer we can give is the Christ child. Now if we make “a woman” to be all women, then we actually have Paul prescribing a different method of salvation for women in general and that isn’t consistent with scripture.

    However if we have Paul prescribing a way for a particular deceived woman to become “deprogrammed” from her deception (he commanded Timothy to let her learn) so that she will be in a place to continue on in the true faith, then it makes sense. Think about it this way – what would you say that a deceived person needs to do to be saved? You could tell them that they need to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, but how does a deceived person do that if they have the wrong Jesus, the wrong gospel and the wrong spirit? (2 Corinthians 11:3,4) The answer is that they need to learn the truth. They need to sit in submission to good godly teaching of correct biblical doctrine so that they can unravel the error. Then and only then will they be in a position to know the truth and be saved.

    Maybe it just makes so much sense to me because I have been actively involved in helping Jehovah’s Witnesses come to faith in Christ for 16 years in a support group setting. They needed to have their false doctrine unraveled before they could accept the truth. When their eyes started popping open by what they were seeing in scripture, it was very rewarding to me to teach them about Jesus.

    Does this make sense at all? And by the way, I believe that you are here because you asked Jesus to teach you. You are on the right road, but there is more for you to learn. Each word in this passage is important and we need to understand who the “she” is without confusing the “she” with the “they” before we can fully understand this passage.

  31. voiceofsanity said,

    “It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.”

    My friend, it might be helpful if you actually refuted Cheryl’s *exegesis rather than make bare-naked assertions like “he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you . . .”.

  32. voiceofsanity,

    Clearly you do not know me. I came to this passage ready to accept what God said no matter what. If it meant that I was to stop teaching the bible to men and I had to kick out all the ex-JW’s who were men, then so be it. I probably would have just stopped teaching period, because I could not be prejudiced against people in all good conscience.

    As far as 2000 years of scholarship on Matt’s side, let me point out that for 2,000 years this passage has not been understood. If you look in any commentary, they will tell you that the church has not been sure what Paul is getting at in verse 15. No one has made complete sense of this verse before without contradictions.

    I came to the passage wanting to know what it meant. I believe that I know and I ask you to show me any contradictions in the passage regarding my understanding of it. Surely if I am wrong then there will be discrepancies. Show me any discrepancies. If you cannot, then why not?

    True biblical scholarship is about consistency and honesty. I have been both consistent in my exegesis and honesty in my approach to scripture. To say otherwise is to judge my heart and that would be inconsistent with scripture to judge me in that way.

  33. 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.

  34. 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

  35. Hey Cheryl,

    I had a chance to listen to the radio interview on my way to work today. He was not very nice, and it seemed like he wrote you off from the get-go. But he did bring up some good points that you will need to deal with in the future. Even though he was being a jerk about it, he was right in saying that you need to try to be more concise with your answers. I know it was your first (second) time being interviewed on the radio, and he was not being gracious to you at all, but it is something you might want to consider. If you are able to practice on someone that might help. The better you are at presenting your ideas the less he will be able to challenge them.

    Remember, too, this is his show – he’s use to these sorts of encounters, and he is going to try to fluster you anyway he can. It seems like he does not care to hear what you have to say, so you might want to try to talk through him… answer his questions to his satisfaction, but do it in a way that reaches his listeners. I doubt that you will be changing his mind anytime soon.

    You should prepare yourself too by asking yourself what kind of objections will he come to you with. I think this was part of the problem. In a way you expected him to listen to you and want you to share your interpretation… but in reality he wanted to challenge you. Not being prepared for the challenge made you lose credibility to his audience. You may want to sit down and write out everything that you know that people believe about these passages, and in 100 words or less explain why that belief is flawed. Do the same with your own position. Knowing the flaws in your argument will only help you strengthen your argument (or throw it away if it is wrong).

    If you can, go back and listen to his objections, listen to the things he ignored and try to figure out why he ignored them. Was it your presentation? Was it his presuppositions? Was it his misunderstanding of what you were saying? — How can you deal with combating these things.

    I think you made a really good point by asking him if he was saying that woman could not teach truth – but he did not understand your point. He kept cutting you off and getting you side-tracked. Then he would blame you for getting side-tracked. Try not to let this happen. If he asks about X, then only deal with X, if he starts chasing a rabbit, lead him back and do it firmly (but lovingly).

    Anyways, I hope you don’t see these words are condemning. I just want to try to help you do better if he gives you another opportunity to speak. I think it could go a lot better.

    God’s Glory,
    Lew A

    The Pursuit Online Store

  36. 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)

  37. Lew,

    Great points! I will definitely be better the next time but probably will never be the best debater. I am much more of a deep thinker than I am a fast talker. Plus I have this respect-thing in my head that I have a hard time pushing someone to answer a question that they are avoiding. I don’t want to be disrespectful and I am not sure how successful a person can be in debate unless they push people. I have this fear thing going on too when it comes to anything “live” and God helped me through but it was all him and none of me. If you see my video clips (look for “women in ministry silenced or set free” on youtube.com) you will see me what I perform like after many outtakes. It is far easier to be the research person and to have my nose in the scripture because to have people looking at me and hearing me “live” is quite a source of angst. That isn’t always good for thinking fast on one’s feet. I have all the answers to Matt’s questions perhaps in a way that he would hear them better once off the air.

    The reason I agreed to go on the radio show was to defend his charge of sin against women. I was not there to prove that women can be Pastors. It isn’t that I have nothing to say about this, but there are much more important things that must precede the discussion on Pastors. i.e. can a woman teach the bible to men? And is it a sin for a woman to teach the bible or be a Pastor? Once these two key questions are answered, then we can move on.

    Regarding talking faster and less words, I offered to do that. Matt asked me to keep my answers down to 1.5 minutes. I agreed but asked him to give me the questions in advance so that I could work on short answers. The offer no longer stands and he has forbidden me to come back on. There is not much I can do although for what it is worth, some of the fear is gone of live radio and having been called a heretic already, what else is there to fear? And if I can trust God with my salvation, I certainly can trust him to help me learn how to “do” radio.

  38. Lew,

    One last thing…do you want to be my coach? I could use all the help I can get!
    :)

  39. 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?

  40. Sure would. Thanks!

  41. I should reword this…when I said that the “offer no longer stands” what I mean was that Matt rescinded his offer to have me back on his program. I am perfectly willing to be humiliated again and be called whatever name he wants to call me this time. If we suffer shame for the name of Jesus then we are blessed. I just never thought that the persecution would come from a brother in Christ!
    :(

  42. This was very well done Cheryl. Not only sticking to Scripture and proper hermeneutics, but using the noggin God gave you as well. I’d like to add some thoughts when I have time.

    I’d also like your permission to print this out and save it to my computer for further study. And perhaps I could have your permission to use parts of your research and conclusions when I do Bible studies on relevant areas…. always with honor to the author.

    Right at the moment I’m in the middle of doing some writing…. which means praying for inspiration …. and putting together research and a study outline on the epistle to the Romans. So any prayers would be very helpful.

  43. justa berean,

    You have my permission. God bless you in your study!

    Cheryl

  44. Thank you, Cheryl for taking the time to think about my questions and consider my ponderings when you are in the heat of such a warfare as this.

    Cheryl wrote:”he ties it in with “the childbearing”. It is a definite noun. What one child is tied in with salvation?”

    I agree that “the childbearing” refers to Christ formed in a woman
    my cross references for that are Gal 4:19-5:1 and Rev 12

    Cheryl wrote: “The basic meaning of the verb sozo is to rescue from peril, to protect, keep alive. Sozo involves the preservation of life, either physical or spiritual.”

    What isn’t sitting right with me is “she will be saved if THEY continue in…” So, if we take your understanding of it being a woman teaching doctrinal error, is HER salvation dependant upon THEY?

    Paul uses Eve being deceived as a “type” of the church (“a chaste virgin bride”) being deceived in 2Cor 11:2-3 I considered whether 1Tim 2:14 could refer to the church, but that does not fit with the context. In context, Eve has to refer to “a woman” and not the original “Eve” because the woman “shall be saved” is future.

    What if “they” in verse 15 refers back up to “women” in verses 9-10?
    What if you, Cheryl; and I Charis are among those women?
    What if every woman, married, single, childless or mother of all the generations since Christ who CONTINUED “in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” and “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety… [and] with good works. ” (9-10)
    What if “she shall be saved” is me? I am 48 years old. I have been an evangelical Christian for some 28 years. In the past 3 years, I have grown in my relationship with God exponentially. I feel that I am being renewed in the image of my Creator in a way I have not experienced earlier in my Christian life. Christ is being formed in me (and by the way the labor of THIS childbirth is painful and intense and would be equally painful for a single childless woman- Gal 4:19)

    Could that “sozo” be about me/woman/Eve being restored to HIS image? because THEY/women have continued in….
    “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge *after the image of him that created him*” (Col 3:10 )
    Isn’t the female reflection of the image of God Eve? So if I- Charis- am “renewed in knowledge after the image of” my creator doesn’t that look like Eve restored?

    We are looking at God’s Word, alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. What if this has been veiled until this generation? Wasn’t the truth about slavery veiled for some 1800 years?

  45. Cheryl,

    That “friendly fire” you mentioned has been one of the hardest lessons for me to learn. I can take (and have taken) outrageous insults from unbelievers without a problem, but when it comes from professing Christians it has a sting all its own. It’s like being disowned by your parents or betrayed by your siblings. We expect it from the lost but not the saved, who sometimes seem so filled with hatred that we have to strain to see any reflection of Jesus in them. But Jesus did say that our enemies would come from our own homes.

  46. Cheryl,
    What if the passage that has been (mis)used by generations to keep women silent is really one of the most powerful statements of liberty and restoration in the Bible? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

    :)

  47. 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).

  48. Charis,

    You said:

    “What isn’t sitting right with me is “she will be saved if THEY continue in…” So, if we take your understanding of it being a woman teaching doctrinal error, is HER salvation dependant upon THEY?”

    Think of this woman as a new convert to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
    Her husband is a Christian but one who is letting her teach him that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. He isn’t correcting her or stopping her and he is bringing some of what she teaches into the congregation even though he isn’t convinced of the error. Now Paul tells Timothy to stop the source of the problem – the woman. He says that the Jehovah’s Witness will be saved if the husband leads her and walks with her in learning the truth. The husband is not the problem per se because Paul doesn’t say that “they will be saved” just that “she will be saved”. But although the husband is not part of the problem, he IS part of the solution. He is the one who will bring her into the meetings and make sure that she learns. He can encourage her to listen and he can be there with her. If the husband does nothing and doesn’t help her, the chance of success is slim. She is fully deceived just like Eve was and she needs an incentive to received correct. The husband is the key to that incentive. Therefore, Paul makes sure that her husband is encouraged to act. Also remember that both Paul and Timothy know things about the problem that we don’t. They know who the people are and what exactly the false teaching is. Paul wants Timothy to know that the husband needs to help his wife in order for her to come out of her error.

    Thank you so much for telling me when things aren’t sitting right with you. That is so commendable! It is important for you to work things out so that you can understand and see things in scripture. If it doesn’t make sense it is a good thing to push for understanding.

    You said:

    “Could that “sozo” be about me/woman/Eve being restored to HIS image? because THEY/women have continued in….”

    I think we could talk about an application to this verse and that would be fine. I think we can get a good application on this passage that would apply to you and me, however do I think that this is what Paul is talking about? No. The reason is that the “she” and “they” don’t mesh. The statement above it appears that you are saying that “she” is me/you/any woman/Eve and “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. “She” cannot be equal to “they”. Which one do you fit in and which one do I fit in? Are you a “she” or a “they”?

    I think the application that you are making is applicable in our sanctification, however a woman’s sanctification is not different than a man’s sanctification. Paul isn’t saying that women are more lost than men or need more help to become like Christ. We as humans are all in the same boat. We are all sinners saved by grace and created for good works. Christ needs to be formed in us, but that happens as we grow and mature in him. Women in general do not need anything special for salvation (that isn’t needed by men), nor do they need to have Christ restore an authority that they lost. The bible has promised that women will be used by God in the last days in a special way in the way that men are used (he has poured out his spirit on all of us). Yes, he has drawn us to himself and it is special. I know exactly what you mean. I too have grown more in the last seven years than I have grown in the time since I became a Christian. But this 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage isn’t about you and I needing to be stopped from teaching. It is a specific word given to Timothy for a specific situation.

    You also said: “Isn’t the female reflection of the image of God Eve? So if I- Charis- am “renewed in knowledge after the image of” my creator doesn’t that look like Eve restored?”

    I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. When I seek to be renewed in the image of God, I look to be like Jesus, not a renewed Eve. That has never crossed my mind. Male or female – Jesus is the one who we are to emulate. Eve was the one whom the Messiah would come through, but the one we fix our eyes on is always Jesus.

    Heb 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

  49. Charis,

    You said:

    What if the passage that has been (mis)used by generations to keep women silent is really one of the most powerful statements of liberty and restoration in the Bible? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

    Amen! 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?

  50. I think your key reasoning is that scripture, when properly interpreted, cannot contradict other scripture. You gave two excellent examples of passages that contradict 1 Timothy 2:11-15, if that passage is interpreted as applying to all women in all places and all times. There are more examples. The explicit permission Paul grants women to prophesy and pray in church (1 Corinthians 11) comes to mind. They must certainly speak to do these things, but the interpretation we are discussing of the 1 Tim passage indicates they cannot speak. Prophesying is by nature an authoritative pronouncement, so how can Paul tell women to prophesy then tell them not to speak in authority to men? Mr. Slick will not answer this question, because he has no answer. He calls you a heretic to divert attention from the fact that he cannot defend his interpretation from scripture.

  51. Thank you Stephen for that good comment! Yes you are right that was a key part of my argument. When I came to the passage, whatever the interpretation I would come to from the inspired words and the inspired grammar, it could not contradict any other passage of scripture. There is much that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:12 if we consider this as a prohibition against women teaching the bible with authority.

    I would very much like to have a civil conversation with Matt Slick. The first time he wrote me after he received my DVDs (a year and a half ago!!) he was very condescending to me and to my work. He then asked me to go on his radio show to discuss the material in my DVDs. At that time I told him that I would not do so because he had a really bad attitude. He assured me that he treats people with respect and even atheists say that. I didn’t believe him and so I stayed away until I heard some shows where he was coming against women and I could no longer keep silent. I am not a Pastor, but I felt great sadness for those precious women who are serving God in this capacity and who are being called sinners for the work they are doing for the Lord. In addition Matt has encouraged men to go into churches and confront the women Pastors. What can I say? I see nothing of this kind of behavior in the scriptures and I believe that it is hurtful to many women – dear sisters in Christ who deserve our support and our love.

    I am hoping that Matt will come on to this forum and discuss with us here and that we will treat him with respect as a brother in Christ. We can be strong, but should he show up, let us not treat him with name-calling as he then has something that he can use to condone his behavior.

  52. 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

  53. voiceofsanity said,

    ‘It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.’

    I hear this ‘2000 years’ argument thrown around quite a bit which btw doesn’t prove a thing. The fact that a belief has been held for any x amount of years does not make it Truth. God does not establish his Truth in such a way.

    The foundational problems I see with the interpretations of ‘complementarian’ flavor are all the contradictions with other scriptures and all the inconsistencies with regard to what is claimed to be a so-called ‘plain reading’ of this 1 Tim 2 passage. The very plain and simple reading of the Greek grammar of the text under discussion actualy speaks about 1 woman and not all.

  54. Matt’s assistant (?) Diane had posted a message on the carmradioblog that Matt does not read the posts there. Instead he has a discussion forum that he visits.

    So I went there (not so simple) and Matt has posted more about his frustration with Cheryl. She has posted in response. Nothing has come up that I could see about the charge of heresy so I posted the following:

    Is Cheryl a heretic?

    Matt, you told Cheryl that she was a heretic. Words have various definitions as well as connotations. It doesn’t bother me at all that the two of you cant agree on exegeting this text. But can you please clarify what you mean by calling her a heretic? Is she apostate?

    Thanks in advance.

    I will let you know if he responds.

  55. 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.

  56. I want to thank you all for being so polite and respectful.
    This is how I found you:

    HERE

  57. oops, let me try that again…

    I want to thank you all for being so polite and respectful.
    This is how I found you:

    HERE FROMjusta berean FROM pro deo sum FROM Family Life Forums

    You might want to go over to the latter message board and help the lonely voices in the wilderness who know what you are saying. I have been seeking for @3 years over there and have been “accused” of being an “egalitarian feminist” even though I didn’t know a thing about “egalitarian”

    I’m not over there any more.
    They weren’t so polite and respectful as y’all.
    I’m a “rebellious Jezebel” :rolleyes:
    Bless you! :)

  58. Charis,

    Bless your heart, you are a real thinker! I love how you keep working to process this.

    You aid: “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)”

    Let’s think this one through first before we go on to the rest of your post. I am multi-tasking here and should be working on my PowerPoint presentation. If I am off-line for a period of time, that’s why. It is hard not to keep coming back here to see the cool comments :)

    So….you need to diagram this one out. How is it that you are the “she” but not also in the “they” category? Are you the only one in the “she” category? If there are more than one “she” then isn’t “she” actually “they” because it is now plural? Think this one through very carefully. Take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. Now put every single female that could be included in the “she” column on the left hand side. Now put “they” on the right hand side. Now put every body that could be included in the “they” column. When you are finished have a close look at the two columns? Are they similar at all?

    Let me know and then we will move on.

    By the way, you are so welcome here! I am so blessed to have wonderful Christian brothers and sisters who come here to share wisdom with me. We try hard not to call each other names or say anything that would shame Christ.
    :)
    :)
    :)

  59. 31voiceofsanity
    It is hard to believe that you can’t see that you are clearly starting with your desired conclusion (i.e. that women should teach in church and be able to become pastors and elders) and twisting scripture to support your preconceived belief. Matt is right and you are wrong. The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs.

    First off: I came from a JW background who teachings that women can’t teach etc. When I found out Jesus was Fully God etc, I said what if they are wrong also on this womens issue. So after about a year after I accepted Christ, The Holy Spirit moved me to check it out. I was reading up on women of the bible one day as a study, yet in the Church I go to… I didn’t see there examples lived out???Then I found out the church I go to, view on women! This is wrong, I looked at the 1st Cent. Church of the Bible and looked at my church and found 2 totally different ways! After much Questioning,Studying, Praying, Thating ALL of scripture in view from The glasses of the Holy Spirit etc.I found the answer to the womens issue. They CAN teach an LEAD! The example of our dear Lord and how He treated Woman/Women is what sealed the deal for me as well as undestanding Paul an the way he teaches!

    I hope my journey can somehow help you & others. God Bless

  60. (BTW How do I do the quotes like y’all?)

    Cheryl said:
    “When you are finished have a close look at the two columns? Are they similar at all?
    Let me know and then we will move on.”

    Actually, they are pretty much the same.
    “she” is each one of them and she moves into “they” when Christ is formed in her.

  61. 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!)

  62. Cheryl,

    You said, “One last thing…do you want to be my coach? I could use all the help I can get!”

    Feel free to email me any time at lew [at] the-pursuit [dot] net. I can try to assist you in anyway that I am able.

    Keep up the good work!

    God’s Glory,
    Lew

    The Pursuit Online Story

  63. Charis,

    My research and documentation has proven that 1 Cor. 15:36 is one of the most powerful statements of liberty and restoration

    Oops that is a typo. It should be 1 Cor. 14:36.

    If you want to see the complete picture right away it is available in my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” In the meantime we are going through the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue along with other relevant material here on this blog. Since I put out my DVD I have developed a system of refuting the hierarchical position and I plan to put that whole topic into another DVD or a book or both.

    As far as putting the quotes into a box, I recommend you contact teknomom at xpndbl (at) dewdropwebs.com. She is really good at that kind of thing. I know how to do it because I have tools that aren’t available to you because I am the owner of this blog. I hope that helps!

    And have a wonderful 25th wedding celebration!!

  64. Hey Cheryl!

    I found you! I see lot’s of good stuff here and now I just need some time to sit, take it all in and digest a bit. As I state at your other place I myself lean more toward a complementarian interpretation, but I would say that someone like Matt Slick? and I would not agree what exactly complentarian actually means. I certainly don’t consider women who teach/preach to be sinners and heretics. No one has ever convinced me that the Bible speaks so clearly on the matter as to be able to call someone a sinner based on differing interpretations. I guess my first thought when I see/hear the word complentarian is marriage and the relationship between husbands and wives. In a nutshell I think that the Bible teaches complentary roles for husbands and wives but big big buuuuut in practice Christian marriages should appear to be egalitarian. When both the husband and wife are following God’s pattern it really works in such a way as what I’ve seen people believe an egalitarian marriage to work.

    But thinks for the work Cheryl. So sorry for those who have treated you with less respect and charity than you deserve. You and I may certainly have some differing views, but I have no problem calling you my sister in Christ!

    Mary

  65. 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

  66. Yes, 1 Cor 14:36 is one of the most liberating verses in the NT as Paul is giving the women-silencing legalists a severe rebuke. Too bad some translations do not show this.

    One does need to see that the very words of God found in the Bible have come thru both men and women, but this is not too difficult for a Berean. If God can speak Biblical-authoritative words from both men and women, then certainly both men and women can teach with authority those Biblical truths.

  67. “The fact that he has 2000 years of theological scholarship to back him up puts the burden of proof on you. You have not met that burden and I hope you will repent of your errant beliefs”

    There are so many theologians I enjoy reading but do not agree with their interpretations. Examples include: Infant Baptism, Pro or condoning Slavery , Baptismal regeneration and Reformers who supported the state church and it’s magistrates. Could any of these been wrong for 2000 years? 1000 years?

    My friend, if you are going to put up comments like this…tell Cheryl WHERE her interpretation is wrong.

  68. Lin,
    A big AMEN! It isn’t helpful to “appeal to authority” without proving where the position is wrong.

  69. Also, an appeal to authority is only valid if all authorities are in agreement. When authorities do not agree, appealing only to the ones that support our own view is no proof of anything.

    Someone gave me a good analogy to use whenever someone uses the “it’s been done this way for [insert timespan], so it can’t be wrong” argument. The white-collar criminals at Enron did their business for a long time before they were caught. Should we have allowed them to continue just because they had been at it for so long? Of course not. Likewise, no matter how long an unbiblical teaching has been universally accepted, we are obligated to oppose it when we learn about it.

    PS: the nice quotes are done with what’s called in html a blockquote tag. Any html tag takes the form text to be affected (but without the spaces; had to do it that way or it wouldn’t show the symbols). So to make quoted text, you’d put

    text to be quoted

    (again, without the spaces).

  70. Oh rats, I didn’t do the example of block quoting right. Let me try again:
    When you want to do something to text in html, you have to surround the text with “tags”. The quoting tag is called “blockquote”. So you’d type a “” then your text, then “”.

    If that didn’t work I’ll just look for a link that shows it.

  71. 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

  72. Thanks Cheryl… but I can’t always tell patience from the will to win! 😉

  73. I put in my comment on CARM board about Matt inviting Cheryl back.

  74. Thanks Don,

    I got an email from Matt tonight. He said that he has no intention of inviting me back. But apparently over at CARM, the women’s issue is the hottest topic on his discussion board. Do you think I Rev’d it up a little?
    😉

  75. Well,
    I did my duty and posted on Matt’s site. “Diane DJ” stated that she found nothing persuasive in Cheryl’s comments and accused her of failing to support her claims. I commented on how Matt did not support his JW pejorative (twice). I stated that I appreciated that he was able to better curtail his finger tapping and sighs of frustration this time through. But I also suggested that rather than agree to disagree or to cite that he and Cheryl held different presuppostions or a different means of qualifying truth, the chose to call her a JW and a heretic. I suggested that he may have had a chance at persuading her if he had refrained from the heretic comment.

    There’s much to be said for demeanor. You only intimidate the weak!

  76. Under Much Grace,

    Bless your heart! Thanks for the comments. Since Matt had stopped me from speaking about the reason why I held my view on 1 Timothy 2, it is no wonder some are not convinced. However I did post this article on Matt’s discussion board and late this afternoon when I left the board, no one yet had been able to refute my exegesis. I guess we will see how that goes. The best thing about this is that I get to get the “rest of the story” out in the way that I do it best – in writing!

    Thanks for helping to get the message out!

  77. I found a thread where Matt asked for a SHORT summary of your position. I posted my understanding, which includes ideas from yours, as I did not see your post there.

    I posted the following on the CARM board.
    The basic reason 1 Tim 2:12 refers to a specific woman is that 1 Tim 2:15 refers to a specific woman and the “she” in “she-will-be-saved” (Greek sothesetai) in 1 Tim 2:15 refers back to 1 Tim 2:12 as it cannot refer to the woman in the garden.

    The verb in 1 Tim 2:15 is future (She will be saved…), while the verb in 1 Tim 2:12 is present active, as in “I am not now permitting…”.

    The repeated hesuchia (in verses 11 and 12) forms a inclusio and serves to bind 1 Tim 2:11 tightly with 1 Tim 2:12 as one thought. As 1 Tim 2:11’s verb is an imperative, this is the key concept that has priority in understand the 11-12 “bundle” and would have been very counter-cultural in the 1st century.

    The basic reason for the letter is to stop false teaching at Ephesus. In order to do that, Paul uses 2 methods, disfellowship for the 2 main deliberate offenders, Hy and Al, who will be taught by satan. The second method he uses is current silencing (but not disfellowshipping) the deceived offender (a woman, not named as naming her would be impacting her potential future ministry), commanding that she be taught correct doctrine by the tearchers in the congregation and then (hopefully) having her restored, depending on her choices once she knows the truth.

  78. Don,

    Wonderful! A good short summary for my very wordy long post!

    This is what I think – we all have our gifts and we all need each other. Those who have been around for awhile know that I am not known for being concise. That doesn’t mean I can’t learn to work on my weakness, but I tend to want to refute every tiny little point of difference. Our ministry partner Lorri MacGregor (ex JW/MacGregor Ministries) laughs when she thinks about how I am such a detail person and she can take an entire book and condense it down to a small 32 page booklet! So God gives me brothers and sisters in the body who have gifts that I don’t have. We work together and together we are much stronger than one mere little tiny person. We are his body and I am awed that he would allow us the opportunity to speak for him! Praise the name of the Lord Jesus!

    You are a blessing to me Don!
    Cheryl

  79. That’s a good summary Don.

  80. Yes, we all need each other. I found Cheryl’s DVD and website after I prayed for additional wisdom on 1 Tim.

  81. Hi y’all, I’m back :)
    We had a great time in Niagara Falls,
    and all the children did fine in our absence. 😀
    I have some thoughts and I’m going to break them up into a few shorter posts instead of rambling on and on in one post.

    Cheryl said:
    “Charis,

    Bless your heart, you are a real thinker! I love how you keep working to process this.

    I just want you to know that my posts here are not off the top of my head. I have been thinking about this for quite some time, and I am glad I met you, because I can see the great thought you have given this! I never met anyone else who has thought about it or can discuss it at this level. Thanks again! :)

  82. Cheryl said: Christ needs to be formed in us, but that happens as we grow and mature in him. Women in general do not need anything special for salvation (that isn’t needed by men), nor do they need to have Christ restore an authority that they lost. The bible has promised that women will be used by God in the last days in a special way in the way that men are used (he has poured out his spirit on all of us). Yes, he has drawn us to himself and it is special. I know exactly what you mean. I too have grown more in the last seven years than I have grown in the time since I became a Christian. But this 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage isn’t about you and I needing to be stopped from teaching. It is a specific word given to Timothy for a specific situation.

    I spose I project my own personal testimony into the passage.
    I believe the scripture and try my very best to obey what it says.
    I attended seminary for a year in preparation for the mission field (in a muslim country from 87-90). The seminary did not allow women to take homiletics/preaching but I took hermeneutics where I learned that “context is king!”
    Although some people try to claim that the restrictions on women ONLY apply in church, that butchers the scripture!!! It is really QUITE CLEAR from the context that the instructions in this passage applies EVERY WHERE:
    “I will therefore that men pray EVERY WHERE,, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women…” 1Tim 2: 8- 9

    I came to the conclusion that either I was misunderstanding the passage or the passage meant something very much like you stated here, Cheryl:

    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.

    …which would resemble the lot of women in strict muslim countries: no woman teach any man anything, no woman have any authority over any man in any realm.

  83. 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!

  84. But that was just 1Tim 11-12. I still wondered about “she will be saved in childbearing if they continue”.
    It seems to me that it cannot be Christian salvation because HER salvation is dependant upon something THEY do???
    How can an individual’s Christian salvation be dependant upon “they”?
    Who is “THEY”?
    If “THEY” is the husband and wife, then I reasoned that their relationship could be restored to a more “garden-like” state where he is not “RULING OVER HER”; the curse upon Eve is undone, when Christ is formed in her, IF THEY continue in faith, holiness, etc… IOW, if she gives up on the marriage and goes for divorce, the marriage will not not be “saved/rescued/restored” to that garden state…

    Now, as I mentioned, I project my own Christian experience into it… And my own marriage to a very traditional, patriarchal man who has used scriptures like this and other ones in a rather oppressive way :( … but I persevered and the Lord has used the furnace which is my marriage to remove dross from me and to bring about a renewal of my mind, Christ formed in ME! And my marriage is not back at the garden state of intimacy with one another and Christ, but it is improving and I have hope.

  85. I wonder if this is 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.
    1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    I can honestly say that going through “circumcision of the heart” is far more painful than any physical childbirth (and I think I qualify as an authoritative on that issue- having born 8 full term). So, perhaps, the curse on Eve of “pain in conception” applies to ALL women- single, married, childless- clarified by 1Tim 2:14-15. “Pain in conception” can be the emotional pain of undergoing heart circumcision, mind/nature renewal, having the image of God restored, having Christ formed in me.

    Col 3:10 and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator .

  86. Matt, do you read here?
    I just wanted to point something out:

    Women are NOT more easily deceived than men!
    Men are just as subject to deception.
    Paul speaking to the church at Corinth, likening the church at Corinth to Eve:

    2Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
    3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

  87. In the past few days, I looked at a few more verses of the context (context is King :) ).

    ” Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1Tim 2:6

    The root of the Greek word for ransom carries the meaning “to liberate from misery and the penalty of their sins”

    I wish you would look at the greek for “in due time”, Cheryl.
    Because I think you are one of those bringing the testimony of which the verse speaks.

    There was a time when I read this part and felt slapped in the face :(

    “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth ” 1Tim2:3-4 (NIV)

    How come God only wants MEN to be saved? What about WOMEN?
    Its a bad translation. God wants all anthropos/people to be saved.

  88. The “every where” in 1 Tim 2:8 is a translation interepretation. This is one of those times when it translates away from an idiom and so it is easy to miss. It would be better if they had translated it as it is in the Greek “in every place”. Then at least people would be able to perhaps figure out that “place” is an idiom for “holy place” as in church. This was a common Jewish way of wording things.

    Paul is not giving general instructions to Timothy about what men should do. He wrote a letter to a church with a problem, teaching of false doctrine, and everthing in that letter is directed to that problem.

  89. On “saved thru childbearing” this wording misses a crucial “the” in the Greek. It is really “saved thru the childbearing”. As such I believe it is refering to the most special child ever born, namely Jesus. However, it is using terminology of Ephesus, where they had the “goddess” Artemis workshipped in a 5 story building and one of the things they asked for was to be “saved in childbearing” which was very dangerous back then.

    So I think Paul is using terms familiar to Ephesians, but giving them a Biblical meaning.

  90. Charis,

    Glad to see you back! I have been laying low myself while I finished a PowerPoint presentation. I just got it done so it is a load off my mind.

    You said:

    “The seminary did not allow women to take homiletics/preaching but I took hermeneutics where I learned that “context is king!”

    This is exactly right. A sentence or part of a sentence may sound completely different when it is ripped from its context. If our understanding doesn’t fit with the context, then we rework our understanding. Many just ignore the context that doesn’t fit but that isn’t right.

    Now as to 1 Timothy 2:12, if we are going to take this passage the complementarian way, I think the restriction would have to be for inside and outside the church not because of the “everywhere” but because of the reason given as something to do with creation. If they interpret this as the order of creation so that the man gets to teach because the first one gets to have special privileges that the second one doesn’t have, then one cannot restrict this to the church because the order of creation has nothing to do with worship but the nature of the creation. Although I believe this interpretation is very wrong for several reasons, if we took it this way as the complementarians do, we could not limit the restrictions to church.

    “…which would resemble the lot of women in strict muslim countries: no woman teach any man anything, no woman have any authority over any man in any realm.”

    At least the Muslims here are consistent in their belief that women cannot teach men and have no authority with men. It is because they believe women are inferior in everything, not just inferior in the place of worship.

  91. Charis,

    You said:

    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!

    While I fully agree with you about a wife trying to control a husband, I don’t think this passage is referring to all wives or all husbands. First of all I don’t think a husband should do the above either. When my husband is gentle with me and reasons with me, it is easier for me to take his side. When he is harsh, he may get his way because I am by nature a submissive person, but his harshness will make my heart hard. No one has been given an authority over another person’s will. That is the reason that husbands are not told to take authority over their wives. No husband is allowed to do that. Well, more about that when we get to the marriage posts concerning women in ministry.

    Now to your next comment….

  92. Charis,

    Here is the key to understanding that Paul is not talking about every woman or about every wife. You said:

    But that was just 1Tim 11-12. I still wondered about “she will be saved in childbearing if they continue”.

    The fact is that “she” is singular feminine and we cannot get out from the grammar in this passage. It is not plural. It cannot refer to all women or all wives or all of anything.

    You asked:

    It seems to me that it cannot be Christian salvation because HER salvation is dependant upon something THEY do???
    How can an individual’s Christian salvation be dependant upon “they”?

    If you diagram out the closest “they” in the passage of people who are living at the time of Paul’s writing (because “they” have to do something) you get back to “a woman” and “a man” from verse 12. This is the simplest logical “they” that doesn’t do any cartwheels to force something on the text.

    Now if you realize that it is only “she” whose salvation is in question, you can understand then that the other person in the “they” is saved. “A man” is saved but he is saying nothing to his deceived wife. He is letting her teach him her deception. If her now turns the tables and leads her into righteousness by making sure that she learns the truth, then he is now doing something that will result in her salvation.

    Think of it this way – say there is a Christian man who is married to a woman who is into all kinds of weird new age religion. She actually thinks she is a Christian (many new agers think this) and she is bringing her false doctrine into the home and teaching him. If he takes the lead and brings her to church, he is doing something that will help her to see the truth and receive salvation. The work that he is doing by bringing her to church to hear the truth is a “work” but is a work that will cause her to hear the truth. It doesn’t merit salvation, it only brings her to the place where she can hear. The woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 needs to “hear” in order to learn. The husband must do something to encourage her to hear. To this point, he has been silent and she has been the teacher teaching false doctrine. He needs to quit being silent and speak up for the truth and if he leads, Paul is sure she will follow. Thus “she” will be saved if “they” (the husband leading the way for his wife) continue in the truth, etc. Does that make a little bit of sense?

    You said:

    If “THEY” is the husband and wife, then I reasoned that their relationship could be restored to a more “garden-like” state where he is not “RULING OVER HER”; the curse upon Eve is undone, when Christ is formed in her, IF THEY continue in faith, holiness, etc… IOW, if she gives up on the marriage and goes for divorce, the marriage will not not be “saved/rescued/restored” to that garden state…

    However you have missed one thing. 1 Timothy 2:13-15 is not about the curse on Eve (no curse is mentioned in Genesis) or about the man’s ruling over her (nothing in the passage says this) nor is the Christ mentioned as being formed in her or that forming in her saves her. Salvation is an event not a birthing process. The garden is not mentioned only deceived and not deceived. Lots of things said and lots of things not said. Look carefully only what is said. The thing that you missed is deception. This is an absolute key to the passage right after “she” and “they”.

    The word for “saved” means spiritual salvation and this is a one time happening. But how does she “a woman” get there? She needs to learn the truth (verse 11). The stopping of teaching is connected to deception (verse 14) and it has something to do with being second (verse 13). The big question is why was Adam not deceived? What happened after he was created and before Eve was created that immunized him to the deception of the serpent? That is the key not rulership or authority or the garden.

    You said:

    Now, as I mentioned, I project my own Christian experience into it… And my own marriage to a very traditional, patriarchal man who has used scriptures like this and other ones in a rather oppressive way :(

    I know what you mean. I was there too. My husband received freedom too when he finally realized that he wasn’t responsible to make me into somebody I wasn’t. And he wasn’t responsible for me spiritually before God. That was a big one that helped him to stop being so hard on me.

  93. Charis,

    “Circumcision of the heart” refers to the cleansing of sin. Do a word search on circumcision and you will find an amazing thing showing what God actually means by this.

    What you need to get your head around is that “the childbearing” is not about giving birth. It is about the Messiah.

    Paul’s whole letter to Timothy is filled with references to deception. There are false teachers who are deceived, there is false doctrine being taught, and there is one particular deceived teacher who is stopped. Now the Pharisees questioned whether a woman could even be saved and here we have a case of a woman spreading and believing false doctrine. Can she be saved? Paul answers in the most ingenious way possible. He links her to the first deceived woman. Paul then says that she can be saved through the Messiah just as the first deceived woman (Eve) was promised that through her would come the Redeemer. You see the one whom Satan deceived would produce the Messiah who would destroy the deceiver. Do you see the connection? The deceiver is destroyed through the woman that he deceived. Her seed (the childbearing – the Messiah) destroys the destroyer.

    Now back to the situation. The woman is deceived and her husband isn’t helping, but Paul is having Timothy take control of the situation. He wants both the wife and the husband involved. The wife is involved by learning the truth. The husband is involved by encouraging her and supporting her and standing by her side so she does learn the truth. Instead of being silent, he participates as “they” (both husband and the wife) are walking together to be sure she unlearns the false doctrine and learns the truth. In that way he is helping her to find the Savior and be saved!

    In any situation where a wife is a Jehovah’s Witness, what her husband does or doesn’t do will be key to helping her come out of her deception. If he does not, she will continue in error. If he takes the lead in righteous, she will be encouraged to follow.

    I hope that this is starting to click a little. Take your mind off of having babies (I can’t believe you lived through having eight!) and the garden and sanctification. Think on “deception”. Now read through this passage thinking how the passage all relates to deception. Keep reading it until it starts making sense. If you leave out deception, the passage cannot make sense as it was inspired to do.

  94. Charis,

    “How come God only wants MEN to be saved? What about WOMEN?
    Its a bad translation. God wants all anthropos/people to be saved.”

    Amen! God wants all of us to be saved? And do you want to know more of what God wants for us?

    2 Timothy 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

    See the faithful men? That is anthropos/humans. We, you and I and all of us can be faithful people who will be able to teach others too!

  95. Don said:

    ‘On “saved thru childbearing” this wording misses a crucial “the” in the Greek. It is really “saved thru the childbearing”. As such I believe it is refering to the most special child ever born, namely Jesus. However, it is using terminology of Ephesus, where they had the “goddess” Artemis workshipped in a 5 story building and one of the things they asked for was to be “saved in childbearing” which was very dangerous back then.

    So I think Paul is using terms familiar to Ephesians, but giving them a Biblical meaning.’

    Thanks for that Don! I’ve been over at the carm discussion boards in the thread that Matt posted for a second time to Cheryl and in it I mentioned the cult of Artemis and a relation to 2:15 of one of it’s beliefs that women would be saved through chiblbirth by her.

  96. Cheryl ,said:

    ‘Now as to 1 Timothy 2:12, if we are going to take this passage the complementarian way, I think the restriction would have to be for inside and outside the church not because of the “everywhere” but because of the reason given as something to do with creation. If they interpret this as the order of creation so that the man gets to teach because the first one gets to have special privileges that the second one doesn’t have, then one cannot restrict this to the church because the order of creation has nothing to do with worship but the nature of the creation. Although I believe this interpretation is very wrong for several reasons, if we took it this way as the complementarians do, we could not limit the restrictions to church.’

    Way to go! I never thought of that! Thanks!

  97. To this point, he has been silent and she has been the teacher teaching false doctrine. He needs to quit being silent and speak up for the truth and if he leads, Paul is sure she will follow. Thus “she” will be saved if “they” (the husband leading the way for his wife) continue in the truth, etc. Does that make a little bit of sense?

    Yes, it does. Thank you.
    It reminds me of 1Cor 7:14 where a believing spouse staying leads to sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and the children.

  98. I hope that this is starting to click a little. Take your mind off of having babies (I can’t believe you lived through having eight!) and the garden and sanctification. Think on “deception”. Now read through this passage thinking how the passage all relates to deception. Keep reading it until it starts making sense. If you leave out deception, the passage cannot make sense as it was inspired to do.

    You are right that deception is key.
    I’ll meditate upon this some more with that focus.
    Your posts are very helpful to me in sorting it out! :)
    Thanks.

  99. I know what you mean. I was there too. My husband received freedom too when he finally realized that he wasn’t responsible to make me into somebody I wasn’t. And he wasn’t responsible for me spiritually before God. That was a big one that helped him to stop being so hard on me.

    They want all the power and authority
    but imagine the crushing responsibility!
    Must be hard to “play god”. :(

    I don’t think my husband has arrived at freedom yet,
    but I have
    and my children have.

  100. Clarifying my understanding:

    Cheryl said:
    nor is the Christ mentioned as being formed in her or that forming in her saves her. Salvation is an event not a birthing process.

    I am interpreting “the childbirthing” as Christ being formed in her- not salvation, but sanctification. Again, I draw on personal experience for that. I have been “saved” for 28 years, but underwent an intense labor (more painful than chilbirth!) of sanctification (which I also referred to as circumcision of my heart) for the past 3 years which has brought me to a new level in my faith. I am able to “walk in the Spirit” with power and consistency which was not there before.

    Cheryl said:
    The basic meaning of the verb sozo is to rescue from peril, to protect, keep alive. Sozo involves the preservation of life, either physical or spiritual. There are two clues that Paul meant spiritual salvation. The first clue is that he does not use this word in any other way in his epistles. The second clue is that he ties it in with “the childbearing”. It is a definite noun. What one child is tied in with salvation?

    Is it possible that he used it to mean “rescue, protect. restore” here?
    I found this verse (not in an epistle):
    Ac 27:31 Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved .

  101. Cheryl said:
    She needs to learn the truth (verse 11). The stopping of teaching is connected to deception (verse 14) and it has something to do with being second (verse 13). The big question is why was Adam not deceived? What happened after he was created and before Eve was created that immunized him to the deception of the serpent? That is the key not rulership or authority or the garden.

    I looked over on the CARM bulletin board a little, and I see for them and for me that the whole “authority” thing muddies the waters.
    Wish I could help out but I can’t stomach joining that discussion, sorry :(

    I have one point which I learned recently. I’ll put it here:

    Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    Adam was not just a gardener!

    08104 shamar {shaw-mar’}
    AV – keep 283, observe 46, heed 35, keeper 28, preserve 21, beware 9,
    mark 8, watchman 8, wait 7, watch 7, regard 5, save 2, misc 9; 468
    1) to keep, guard, observe, give heed

    “keep”/shamar means to guard!
    Does that not imply that there was an enemy?
    Adam was the watchman.

  102. “keep”/shamar means to guard!
    Does that not imply that there was an enemy?
    Adam was the watchman.

    Somewhere I read an interesting theory about that, might have been in God’s Word to Women. It proposed that Adam was to guard against the Serpent, which of course has serious implications concerning the Fall.

    If Adam had been charged with keeping the serpent out of the garden, then he not only shirked his responsibility but, possibly, didn’t see any reason to keep him out. Had he done his job, Eve would not have been tempted at all. And in this light, think of the great failure on Adam’s part to stand and watch as this serpent he was to keep out led Eve into sin.

  103. Here is how I see it. Many people (I did) think that there was only one command from God in the garden, as this is what they have been taught. But this is not true. There was one negative command, a prohibition, but there were many positive commands.

    Doing a prohibited act is a sin, but also not doing a commanded act is a sin.

    The man was to till/work and guard/keep the garden (Gen 2:15). The keep/guard is the same word used in Gen 3:24 where the angel keeps/guards the man from the tree of life. In other words, both are active things, till and guard.

    One does not ask someone to guard something unless there is something to guard it from. So when we see God saying the man was to guard the garden, we should be expecting some threat to the garden, in the back of our minds.

    As we know, in Gen 3 the serpent shows up and starts twisting and changing God’s words. This is a threat to the garden and is where the man should have used his authority over all animals. But he did not, he did not obey the positive command to guard the garden, this is the first person who does not follow God’s plan, but it may take some mediation to see it.

  104. “I looked over on the CARM bulletin board a little, and I see for them and for me that the whole “authority” thing muddies the waters.”

    Charis, I am convinced that a misunderstanding of REAL Biblical authority is a root problem in many areas of Christendom.

    This of this: Can a false teacher have ‘authority’?
    How can we know if one is a false teacher? (Be a Berean)
    Are all believers now “Priests”? A part of the Holy Priesthood? (Hebrews and 1 Peter for starters)
    What is an elder? Someone mature in the faith.

    What is true Biblical authority? One who rightly interprets and teaches the Word has Biblical authority and once we hear/know the truth we are personally responsible for it.

  105. “What is true Biblical authority? One who rightly interprets and teaches the Word has Biblical authority and once we hear/know the truth we are personally responsible for it.”

    I have made the following statement many, many times to our church during teaching: “What I teach is only authoritative insofar as it correctly represents and applies the teachings found in the Scriptures.

  106. Charis,

    You said:

    I am interpreting “the childbirthing” as Christ being formed in her- not salvation, but sanctification.

    But Charis, remember that Paul said “She will be saved if…” This shows that the woman is not yet saved. I too understand the process of sanctification but it always follows salvation. This woman is not yet saved so Paul is not talking about the process of sanctification but the fact that she will be saved if….

    Remember that we are talking about the salvation of a deceived person. Think about, for example, a Jehovah’s Witness. Can they just accept Christ by having the gospel preached to them or do they need to unlearn at least some of their false doctrine before the gospel will make sense to them and then they can have faith to believe in the real Jesus. Having lead a support group for ex-JW’s for 16 years, I know how hard some JW’s have to work to get past their false doctrine. It is difficult for them to put faith in Jesus when they have believed that he is a created being originally created as Michael the Archangel. Do you see the importance of making a deceived person sit down and learn the truth? Then, Paul says, once she has learned the truth and left her false doctrine aside so she can stay fully in the truth of God’s word, then and only then will she be in a position to be saved.

    So the key here is not putting yourself in the passage. Don’t think sanctification. Think salvation of a deceived person. Go back to chapter 1 and read it as if the woman was in the group of deceived teachers who didn’t know what they were talking about. You will find these deceived ones close to the beginning of chapter 1. How will these deceived teachers be saved? One of them is separated by Paul from the others because one of them is a woman and her husband is saved but letting her continue in her deception and so Paul (and Timothy) need to get involved in a marriage situation. Watch how Paul differentiates between the deceived teachers and those who have already left the entire faith behind and are now deceivers (Hymenaeus distored the resurrection by saying that it had already happened. Check his name in the NT and you will read more about him. Alexander was also someone who actively opposed Paul in ministry. Check out the NT where Alexander is spoken about and you will see a complete difference between these two and the deceived teachers who were completely ignorant. The deceived teachers were not deceivers like H & A who were deliberate deceivers.)

    Don’t worry about going onto Matt’s board right now. It will only confuse you. What you need to do right now is get your thinking fully on board with the subject of deception in 1 Timothy. You will be see things completely differently in chapter 2 if you do.

    Just a reminder for those who didn’t read my comment on my latest post yesterday that this weekend is Thanksgiving here in Canada and my company arrives this afternoon so I will be off line for a few days while I play host to my in-laws. I hope you’all have a great weekend.

    Blessings!
    Cheryl

  107. Dusman,

    Great words about authority and the preeminence of God’s word! This is the humility that all Pastors need to have. Even the Apostle Paul told the Bereans that they were more noble in that they checked him out by the OT scriptures!

  108. The “every where” in 1 Tim 2:8 is a translation interepretation. This is one of those times when it translates away from an idiom and so it is easy to miss. It would be better if they had translated it as it is in the Greek “in every place”. Then at least people would be able to perhaps figure out that “place” is an idiom for “holy place” as in church. This was a common Jewish way of wording things.

    Paul is not giving general instructions to Timothy about what men should do. He wrote a letter to a church with a problem, teaching of false doctrine, and everthing in that letter is directed to that problem.

    I so appreciate the insight that you Greek scholars have! :)

    But are you thinking it is not for today? and it is only for “in church”? But I am the temple of the Holy Spirit (2Cor 6:16) and those who worship God will not do so in a certain “place” they will worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4)

    This is completely tangential, but when I was turning this passage over and over in my mind with respect to personal application to myself and my own life… I can see a connection between:
    “men pray every where, lifting up holy hands ” (vs 8)
    AND
    “women adorn themselves in modest apparel” (vs 9)

    How can men who are viewing pornography (which I have heard is a huge percentage of the “church”) lift up HOLY hands? And why would Paul only want them to dress modestly in church? Isn’t that for everywhere and all times? I don’t mean as a legalistic thing (like Amish or muslim “dress codes”), but to avoid causing others to stumble? It sure seems relevant for today!

  109. Charis, I am convinced that a misunderstanding of REAL Biblical authority is a root problem in many areas of Christendom.

    This of this: Can a false teacher have ‘authority’?
    How can we know if one is a false teacher? (Be a Berean)
    Are all believers now “Priests”? A part of the Holy Priesthood? (Hebrews and 1 Peter for starters)
    What is an elder? Someone mature in the faith.

    What is true Biblical authority? One who rightly interprets and teaches the Word has Biblical authority and once we hear/know the truth we are personally responsible for it.

    very insightful, Lin!
    I’ve mentioned earlier here that I read that divorce is statistically higher in patriarchal churches. I understand why! I understand because we could so easily have been one of those statistics!
    I cannot tell you what an IMMENSE relief it is to me to realize my husband is NOT my authority nor my leader :)

    The scripture says, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Eph 5:23)
    “head” NOT “authority”
    “authority” is NOWHERE delegated to HUSBAND by GOD
    I feel ever so much safer in the hands of the LORD (who IS my AUTHORITY) than I do in those of my husband!!! It is indescribable how freeing it is. :)

    Here is a link to an article which was an eye opener for me: I Believe in Male Headship

  110. The point is that Paul is talking about people in a congregation setting. If you reverse engineer the phrases, it means some men were getting angry and some women were wearing ostentatious rich clothes.

    All those other things are true, but not the point of this passage.

  111. this weekend is Thanksgiving here in Canada

    Happy Thanksgiving!
    I’ll pray right now for you and yours!
    Bless you!

  112. Don said:
    The point is that Paul is talking about people in a congregation setting. If you reverse engineer the phrases, it means some men were getting angry and some women were wearing ostentatious rich clothes.

    All those other things are true, but not the point of this passage.

    What is troubling me is that is appears that you are making these scriptures only relevant to the contemporaries to whom it was written?

    Was it written to them, and for the reasons Cheryl has concluded? I think it is completely plausible!

    Did Paul know how his words would be twisted and misused as a straitjacket on women? I’m quite sure Paul did not know that!

    Did God know? I’m quite sure God knew! (and works it together for the good for those who love HIM and are called according to HIS purpose in order that they may be conformed to the image of CHRIST :) )

    The prophets of the OT had contemporary fulfillment and future fulfillment. I think God’s Word in the NT can be multidimensional like that:

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

  113. 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

  114. Thank you for the article & time to send this e-mail, I looked over the article. I still disagree with the article. For exmaple: the article states:

    Father was indeed an eternal obedience, rendered by an eternal equal, constituting an eternal subordination of the Son to do the will of the Father

    Nice wording but the Son Is NOT/can’t be eternal subordination because Jesus is that ONE true God! ANY limit on Him in anyway you lose the Oneness/Tri-Unity/FULLY God of Him! ALL 3 Persons of the Trinity are seen woking as ONE!

    You give me articles but I’m just using Only the Bible to prove my side of the issue! Just see below what is typed, I used bold print to drive the point home!

    Another example: The Father & Holy Spirit:

    INTERCHANGES OF “GOD” AND “HOLY SPIRIT”

    Now we will consider more Scriptures proving that the Holy Spirit is indeed God. When the Bible interchanges terms exactly, we can be sure that God is teaching us that they are interchangeable. We will now commence to look at some Scriptures in the Old Testament referring to Yahweh God, and find that when they are applied and quoted in the New Testament, they are, in fact, attributed to the Holy Spirit. This is possible only if the Father, Yahweh God, and the Holy Spirit are the one God.

    ——————————————————————————–

    EXODUS AND HEBREWS

    Let’s consider Exodus 17:2,
    “Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test Yahweh (or, the Lord)?”

    Notice that the people were clearly testing Yahweh God. When this account is referred to in Hebrews 3:7-9, we find that the people were testing the HOLY SPIRIT.

    “Therefore just as the HOLY SPIRIT says, Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, as in the day of trial in the wilderness, where your Fathers tried Me, by testing Me, and saw My works for forty years.”

    Indeed, the people were putting to the test the one God, revealed two ways in these Scriptures, as the Father and as the Holy Spirit.

    ——————————————————————————–

    JEREMIAH AND HEBREWS

    The prophet Jeremiah records a promise of YAHWEH God in chapter 31, verse 33,
    “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD (or YAHWEH), “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God and they shall be My people”.

    That promised new covenant is now a reality. The original uttering of that covenant promise was attributed to YAHWEH God, but let’s now read

    Hebrews 10:15,
    “And the HOLY SPIRIT also bears witness to us, for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days says the Lord; I will put my laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write them”.

    Another revelation of the one God, through the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are the one God.

    ——————————————————————————–

    ISAIAH AND ACTS

    Another prophet, Isaiah, records in chapter 6, verses 8-10,
    “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send Me! and He said, “Go and tell this people; Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.” Render the hearts of this people insensitive. Their ears dull, And their eyes dim. Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, and repent and be healed.”

    When application of the Scripture was made in New Testament times by the apostle Paul, we find that the HOLY SPIRIT is credited with the utterance, in place of the Father. Acts 28:25-27 records,

    “And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “the Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers saying,

    “Go to this people and say, “You will keep on hearing but will not understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn again, and I should heal them.”

    Yes, the terms “God” and “Holy Spirit” interchange in Scripture. The Holy Spirit Himself is called “God” and He is that one true God.

    Only Again Thank You for reading this,Bye,

    Michael

  115. Matt said that in the Old testment we see no women priesthood etc etc. Trying to use the old testment to leave out women etc etc. But you can’t do/use that one.

    First you had to be Jewish following The Law (we are not under the law)

    second you had to be of the Levite’s tribe to be a priest working in the temple!

    the 4th temple (which is Future also known as Ekz. Temple) has no womens court because it’s not needed, we are ALL one in Christ! Jesus even praYED THAT WE ALL BE ONE (ALL TRUE BORN-AGAIN BELIEVES)

    Matt’s arguement falls short in many areas!

    Hope this helps

  116. You could not act as a priest if you have open sores. Do any elders have acne today? The Mosaic covenant provides a TYPE, a SHADOW of the reality in the new covenant.

    Fortunately, every believer is a priest in the new covenant and the high priest is Jesus.

  117. To Don Johnson,

    Thanks Don for the extra info! It’s cool that I’m not the only guy on this site!

  118. Here is my basic 2-step formula for the Bible.

    1. Exegesis: try to do one’s best to figure out what a teaching unit (pericope) meant to the original readers. If you go with less than a teaching unit, then you risk taking a verse out of its immediate context. A way to remember this is the word: deversify – verses were added by human effort and can help or hinder. In this process I am the subject and the Bible is the object.

    2. Application: What does this mean for me and others today? How am I changed by this? The Bible is meant to change me. In this process the Bible and the Holy Spirit is the subject and I am the object.

    Note that one may be a great exegete and a terrible applier or vice versa; this idea is to be both. And of course, use all the help you can get.

  119. Thank you Don, that helps :)
    So the “teaching unit” in this case would be the entire letter of 1Tim, and “deversify” = take out the chapters and verses beause they weren’t in the original.

    Don said:
    Note that one may be a great exegete and a terrible applier or vice versa; this idea is to be both. And of course, use all the help you can get.

    The above quote is reminiscent of Jesus when He said:

    MT 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: [2] “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. [3] So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach…

  120. On your quote from Jesus, you got what I wrote, great.

    On deversify, we need to remember that chapters and verses were not in the original, also some versions add paragraph headings for what they think is being discussed, but they can be wrong. Even just paragraph breaks can be wrong, for example many Bibles make a paragraph break from Eph 5:21 to Eph 5:22 but this is not even possible to do in the Greek, as verse 22 inherits its verb from verse 21.

    The teaching unit in Proverbs MAY be a single verse, because of the way Proverbs is structured. I think 1 Tim can be “chunked” into a few teaching units, but one should always keep the whole letter in overall context. I think one teaching unit is 1 Tim 2:8-3:16 as I see this as all about restoring errant overseers (or those wishing to be overseers).

  121. basic 2-step formula

    Thanks again Don, you make it so easy and simple a child can understand that one!

  122. (Please forgive me in advance, Cheryl, this is off topic…)

    Don Johnson,
    Can you please help me with a greek question?
    I was reading through Matt 23 today (multitasking as I watched my children’s Bible Quiz tournament for a few hours). Actually, my reading that passage was related to this thread because I was thinking about that idea I mentioned in an earlier post of dual intent in Bible passages: it applied to the hearers then and it also applies to us now. IOW, Jesus said Matt 23 back then to Pharisees, but aren’t there still “Pharisees” today to whom it would speak? Anyway, my strong’s is on my laptop which I did not have with me, so I made myself a note to look up this verse- which I just did now- but the strong’s isn’t helping me with the gender here (I bolded the word in question):

    Matt 23:34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

    Thank you in advance.

  123. The Greek is sophos, it is not (necessarily) gender specific, see the Literal Version which translates it as “wise ones”. Recall that the plural male form of nouns can include females in Greek, like 1950s English. It may or may not include females, one needs to try to discern from other clues which is meant. But as the size of the group gets larger, it is a safe assumption that it does, unless there is some reason to think otherwise.

  124. On the exegesis and application paradigm, Gordon Fee says most of what I wrote. I try to learn from everyone I can.

  125. 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!

  126. On the exegesis and application paradigm, Gordon Fee says most of what I wrote. I try to learn from everyone I can.

    That is really hard for me at this point.
    I’m not dumb. I have a bachelor’s and a masters and I attended some seminary, but I was easily led, gullible, compliant, and trusted the translators, preachers, books, teachings, etc…
    and I feel intensely betrayed by them at this point, so its hard for me to trust anyone’s teaching.
    I trust God and I trust the Bible.
    I don’t trust what men do with the Bible :(

    I don’t find very many who dig very deep, and I am enjoying y’all on here who have actually thought about this stuff!!!

  127. oops, in the above post, this part is a quote from Don Johnson (the rest is me):

    Don said:
    “On the exegesis and application paradigm, Gordon Fee says most of what I wrote. I try to learn from everyone I can.”

  128. Charis,

    I mainly use e-sword, which is freeware and have many versions for free, some for money. I have ALT, ESV, GNB, KJV+ (w/ Strong’s numbering), KJVA (for apocrypha and KJV without Strongs), and LITV. The LITV says “wise ones”. These are all free.

    I also have Bible Explorer, freeware, which has ASV, HCSB and many others for free, some others for money.

    I also have NIV and TNIV as separate files.

    I use Scripture4all for an interlinear.

    I read a lot.

    Think of any translation as a good faith effort to make it easy for you to adopt the understanding of someone else about what the Bible says. But realize it is someone else’s understanding.

    The history of Bible interpretation tells one to be VERY WARY of an interpretation/translation that gives special priviledges to some subset group of believers that are NOT defined by what spiritual gifts they possess, for example, a church, popes, kings, slave owners, males.

  129. Cheryl said:
    The word for “saved” means spiritual salvation and this is a one time happening. But how does she “a woman” get there? She needs to learn the truth (verse 11). The stopping of teaching is connected to deception (verse 14) and it has something to do with being second (verse 13). The big question is why was Adam not deceived? What happened after he was created and before Eve was created that immunized him to the deception of the serpent? That is the key

    Is it because she was ignorant?
    She was not formed yet when God gave the command.

    Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
    16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
    18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    I also wonder what it means and if it has any bearing that in 1Peter 3:7 that the woman is “the weaker vessel”. I don’t think it is an insult toward women, a character flaw, nor a design flaw. Somehow it is God’s intention, part of HIS design, and very good.

    And, Adam was closer to a pure “image of God” than any other man who ever lived (besides Jesus). It says in 1Tim 2:14 “Adam was not deceived”. He made the decision to eat the fruit before his eyes were open to the knowledge of good and evil which leads to death. What if his motivations were far more noble than what we imagine? Suppose he CHOSE to die by eating the fruit out of LOVE for his wife??? It still transgressed the boundaries God gave him, so it was still sin. The tree which leads to death is not JUST the knowledge of evil. Somehow “the knowledge of good” leads to death too.

  130. :QUOTE:I also wonder what it means and if it has any bearing that in 1Peter 3:7 that the woman is “the weaker vessel”. I don’t think it is an insult toward women, a character flaw, nor a design flaw. Somehow it is God’s intention, part of HIS design, and very good.

    And, Adam was closer to a pure “image of God” than any other man who ever lived (besides Jesus). It says in 1Tim 2:14 “Adam was not deceived”. He made the decision to eat the fruit before his eyes were open to the knowledge of good and evil which leads to death. What if his motivations were far more noble than what we imagine? Suppose he CHOSE to die by eating the fruit out of LOVE for his wife??? It still transgressed the boundaries God gave him, so it was still sin. The tree which leads to death is not JUST the knowledge of evil. Somehow “the knowledge of good” leads to death too. :END QUOTE:

    STARTING WITH THE PHRASE “the weaker vessel”.
    7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

    That phrase from my understanding of scripture is this. Woman has a big disadvantage because of the fall, the curse on woman would be (History shows it) that:an he (Man/male) shall rule over you (women/female)! The husband is told to give honour & according to knowledge now because your both Heirs together in Christ. The only way to break that curse or undo it, is being in Christ. Giving your wife (or sister in the faith) equal rein to rule together side by side just like it was before the curse/fall because we are BOTH heirs and In Christ. ONE Hope ONE faith ONE baptism etc. An we single men can learn from this passage as well even though it was written to Husbands. We need to back up our sisters (an wifes to thoughs who are married) in Christ to answer their higher callings from HIM. If you hinder her (Gods Daugthers/Sisters/Women/Wifes) your prayers will be hindered!

    Now for the other question about Knowledge: If good knowledge or wisdom leads to death then was it good in the first place? (Don’t confuse that question about Christ going to the cross to die because he beat death when he rose again) that was God’s good wisdom/understanding at it’s best! Maybe to rephrase that question would be this: If good knowledge or wisdom leads to (HELL FOREVER) then was it good wisdom/knowledge in the first place? No. The whole idea of Good wisdom an Knowledge is to PROTECT someone from doing something bad or to warn someone to not make a bad choice or go down a bad path!
    The TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD & EVIL IN THE GARDEN: All of what God makes is perfect an good. It was good that that tree was in the garden because it was a visable reminder to Adam as well as Eve that as long as they didn’t eat from that tree ( not to be like God) that was good! It was bad to eat from it it would bring death!
    They all ready had the knowledge of good & evil FROM GOD. Its was good not to eat (or touch), it was bad if they did. If they ate from that tree they would get the knowledge of good & evil by EXPERIENCE but now you have to EXPERIENCE THE BAD AFFECT of that action SIN WHICH BRINGS DEATH!
    Look at it this way,once they sinned they knew God was GOOD (He Warned Them) but now they did an EVIL thing(They Ate/Sinned). Also it proves God means what He said!
    It was in the Garden where “Self” was born. ME,MYSELF,AND I. The tempation with Eve. The Fruit looked good to ME, To make ME wise/wisdom, To be like God etc.ME ME ME, Me Myself and I.
    Jesus said to forsake/denied self! Self: We are our own worse enemy!

  131. Thanks Michael :)

    It was in the Garden where “Self” was born. ME,MYSELF,AND I. The tempation with Eve. The Fruit looked good to ME, To make ME wise/wisdom, To be like God etc.ME ME ME, Me Myself and I.

    Jesus said to forsake/denied self! Self: We are our own worse enemy!

    That reminds me of something I read regarding the trees being in the CENTER of the garden, and what we choose to be in the CENTER: self or Christ?

    The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a powerful Biblical model of the Law…. it is through the Law that we derive our knowledge of good and evil. We may wonder how knowledge brings death until we see the fruit. The knowledge of good and evil kills us by distracting us from the One who is the source of life: The Tree of Life- Jesus. The Tree of Knowledge causes us to focus our attention upon ourselves. Sin is empowered by the law; not just because evil is revealed but the good as well. It drives us either to corruption or self-righteousness, both of which lead to death.

    It is significant that the Tree of Knowledge is found in the center of the garden (see Genesis 3:3). Self centeredness is the chief malady with which it afflicts up. After Adam and Eve ate its fruit, their first response was self-inspection. Before eating they had not even noticed their nakedness; their attention was on the Lord and the purposes for which He had created them. After eating, the good and the evil which they now understood forced them to measure themselves by it. There is no easier way to keep us from the Tree of Life than to have us focus our attention upon ourselves. This is what the Law accomplishes. Because of this Paul called it “the ministry of death” and the “ministry of condemnation” (II Cor 3:7,9)

    When we define the Tree of Knowledge as the Law, we are not referring only to the Law of Moses. We often think of the OT as the Law and the NT as Grace, but this is not necessarily true. The Old Covenant is the Letter; the New Covenant is the Spirit. If we read the New Testament with an Old Covenant heart it will just be law to us. We=ll have dead religion with righteousness that is based on compliance with written commandments instead of a living relationship with God.
    quoted from There Were Two Trees in the Garden

  132. While I am looking at quotes… My 21 yos told me he read “Blue Like Jazz” FOUR TIMES!!! and really liked it, so I ordered him another Donald Miller book as a gift (and I had to peek 😉 )

    I thought Donald Millers description of Adam and Eve was very sweet, and he thinks about things, and so do I:
    quoted from Searching for God Knows What

    But here is Adam, the only perfect guy in the world, and he is going around wanting to be with somebody else, needing another person to fulfill a certain emptiness in his life. And as I said, when God saw this, He did not create Eve right away. He did not give Adam what he needed immediately. He waited. He told Adam to name the animals….

    I looked up how many animals there are in the world… and Adam, apparently, had to name all of them. And the entire time he was lonely.

    I never thought of Adam the same again… this was a man who, despite feeling a certain need for a companion, performed what must have been nearly one hundred years of work, naming and perhaps even categorizing the animals… Moses said that Eve didn’t give birth to their third child till Adam was well into his hundreds, which means they would have had Cain and Abel some thirty or so years before, which also means either it took Adam more than a hundred years to name the animals, or he and Eve didn’t have sex for a good, long, boring century. And so in my mind, I began to see Adam as a lonely naturalist…

    The thing is, when Adam finished naming the animals, after all his work and effort, God put him to sleep, took a rib out of his side, and fashioned a woman. I had read that part a thousand times, too, but I don’t think I quite realized how beautiful that moment was… So here was this guy who was intensely relational, needing other people, and in order to cause him to appreciate the gift of companionship, God had him hang out with chimps for a couple hundred years. Its quite beautiful, really. God directed Adam’s steps so that when He created Eve, Adam would have the utmost appreciation, respect, and gratitude.

    I think it was smart of God because today, now that there are women all around and a guy can go on the Internet and see them naked anytime he wants, the whole species has been devalued. I read recently where one out of every four women, by the time they reach thirty , are sexually harassed, molested, or raped. And then I thought how very beautiful it was that God made Adam work for so long because there is no way, after a hundred years of being alone, looking for somebody whom you could connect with in your soul, that you would take advantage of a woman once you met one. She would be the most precious creation in all the world…

    I’ll bet Adam felt loved by God, like he was somebody God was always trying to bless and surprise with amazing experiences, and I’ll bet they talked together about how beautiful Eve was and how wonderful it was that the two of them could know her, and I would imagine that Eve felt safe, loved, not used or gawked at, but appreciated and admired….

    I started asking myself why Moses would say five times that people were naked before the Fall, but after the Fall they went around with clothes on… The very first thing that happened after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was that they noticed they were naked. And man, I couldn’t stop thinking about how whatever happened at the Fall made them aware they were naked…

    Here is what I think Moses was saying: Man is wired so he gets his glory (his security, his understanding of value, his feeling of purpose, his feeling of rightness with his Maker, his security for eternity) from God, and this relationship is so strong, and God’s love is so pure, that Adam and Eve felt no insecurity at all, so much so that they walked around naked and didn’t even realize they were naked. But when that relationship was broken, they knew it instantly. All of their glory, the glory that came from God, was gone…

    I used to think that when the Fall happened, man started lusting, getting angry, getting jealous, coveting, stealing, lying, and cheating because, in the absence of God, he became a bad person…
    And then it hit me how awful it must have been for Adam and Eve… to have been tricked by Satan into breaking their relationship with God.

    You and I have it easier. We were born this way. But I remember loving a girl back in Colorado and having her explain to me she didn’t feel the same and how for a year I lived in the attic of an old house in Portland, feeling an ache and emptiness in my heart I thought would never mend…
    And this feeling, this feeling must have been so much more painful for Adam and Eve, this feeling of having an infinite amount of love pouring through their lives and then its’s suddenly gone… I wondered at how terrible it must have felt, at the fear of no longer feeling God, at the ache of emptiness and the sudden and horrifying awareness of self. God have mercy.

  133. Thanks Charis ,

    I printed out your comments/Teaching on the Tree Of Knowledge! I think…I know you worded it better then me! Thanks so much for your Godly insight on these very deep things of God’s Word!

  134. That was a good teaching above. The only thing I disagree with is Adam being alone for a 100years. Adam & Woman(Eve) were made on the sixth day after naming the animals in eden! We don’t know how long they were in the garden before they fell! As perfect people there was no death no need to rush and have Children but they knew one day they would have kids! They had perfect self-control, maybe they took awhile getting to know one another? But once they were kicked out of Eden and now have a death sentence Time is now there enemy/against them! So the next thing we read is Adam & Eve having kids! This is my view on this.

  135. Adam & Eve experienced nothing but Good from God and KNEW what was the BAD thing not to do (Eat From That Tree) infact everything was Very Good. Once they ate and experienced the knowledge of GOOD and BAD things changed! The law of God is GOOD and because it’s GOOD Something BAD will you experience or happen if you go against that Goodness (Which Is Death) or in the Orig. Hebrew: In the day that thou eat of Dieing you shall die!Meaning not just spiritual death but also physical death and then something worse…second death in Hell! Thank God for Mercy/Grace!
    Does the above make sense?

  136. Thanks Charis ,

    I printed out your comments/Teaching on the Tree Of Knowledge! I think…I know you worded it better then me! Thanks so much for your Godly insight on these very deep things of God’s Word!

    Michael, you deserve the credit, not I. Your thoughts came straight from your own heart and mind. Mine came right from a book, man! Your thoughts reminded me of what I had read. You were onto the same thing as Joyner! I think that means you both have the ears to hear from the same Spirit.

    “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. “

  137. Hi folks!

    Just popping in for a minute. I spent what time I had available today on Matt’s blog and I will have to sort through my comments so that I can post it here. I just ran out of time and it is now 12:42 am. (Go to bed, you say? Who me? Who needs sleep?)

    Tomorrow is a big day for me and I may not get a chance to come back here to read and respond until Thursday. I have a new article that needs to be given birth to (hopefully soon) so hope you guys can have patience with me. Have you ever had birth pains with an article? I think the pains will be there until I can get it out. Oh, Lord, help me to have time for all the ministry that you have given me, without ignoring my family (my mother-in-law especially!)

    Blessings my friends,
    Popping out again until next time,
    Cheryl

  138. 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!

  139. I have a new article that needs to be given birth to (hopefully soon) so hope you guys can have patience with me. Have you ever had birth pains with an article? I think the pains will be there until I can get it out. Oh, Lord, help me to have time for all the ministry that you have given me, without ignoring my family (my mother-in-law especially!)

    Lord, I pray that you would pour grace and strength into Cheryl to do the good works you have prepared in advance for her. I pray that she would cast off every yoke that is not from you and walk with YOU through each moment of each day. Bless her!

    I haven’t had those birth pains with an article, but I have them with revelation. I hurt, hurt, hurt and then its like another veil comes off and I see the LIGHT clearer as God enlightens the eyes of my heart.

    “For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. ” Eph 1:15-19

    (WHAT prayer! I love Paul! :D)

  140. Just rambling a bit.

    I was thinking about the Adam and Eve thing. That idea that Adam knew he was going to die, he wasn’t deceived. And that the tree will make him “like god”. I am married to a patriarchal man. In a way, he seems to want to be “like god”. That drive to control and micromanage every decision that every person in the household makes…. And I really did used to put him on a pedestal and think that is how GOD wanted it: every little thing had to go through my husband… (your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you)

    On my 25th wedding anniversary (which was Tues), I had birth pangs (BAD) and revelation (GOOD :) )!!! I’m doing Beth Moore’s study Beloved Disciple and I really think she wrote week 2 for me! :) She points this out Luke 9:52-55 where the disciples ask Jesus if they should call down fire to burn those Samaritans to a crisp because they didn’t welcome Jesus. Boy, do I resemble those disciples sometimes! Its a good thing I am not God!

    I think things would be great if only my husband would (give up his addictions)…. The revelation God showed me that HE is quite interested in working on yours truly: on ME! Yikes! OK, Lord! Actually it feels really good and freeing to realize that… But, I get scared when I look at what he is doing (his addictions) and then I get angry at him but my anger just makes a worse mess :( I realized I am trying to protect myself and my children, but my way doesn’t work, it is counterproductive. What is God’s way? And HE showed me… HE wants me to 1John 5:16. So, I am trusting God that the next 25 years will be years of LIFE!

  141. I have to correct myself.
    I was accustomed to thinking that God had cursed Eve, and I probably posted that :(
    Please forgive me for misrepresenting God.
    There was no curse on Eve. Only the serpent and the ground was cursed. (Gen 3:14,17)

  142. Charis,

    Thank you for your prayers! I really have needed extra grace from God this week.

    I will come back with my own thoughts regarding your other writing later after my article is up. I have to prioritize my work right now and that will be one of my next priorities, then I will be free to read over again and comment on all the comments here.

    Much love,
    Cheryl

  143. SO, I was looking at “hope” verses…
    nothing to do with the thread, really, more to do with my own life…
    But, this kinda jumped out at me. I’m not used to reading it in KJV.

    Ro 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

    And it made me think of Adam and Eve and God’s prounouncements after the Fall (NOT curses, but certainly “consequences”)

    Got me to wondering if “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” is vanity to which God subjected Eve in HOPE?

  144. Actually, the Hebrew does not say “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” but “your turning will be to your husband and he will rule over you”. Basically, from what I understand is the view of Dr. Katherine Bushnell, the sense of the passage is “A trap was set for you, and you will bring forth children in sorrow. You will turn and follow your husband, and then he will rule over you.”

    So Eve, who was not cursed but blessed with the promise of the Savior, is being told that she will make a poor choice. This means she indeed had a choice, not a command, whether to leave the garden and follow Adam out or not. Only “the man” was driven out and forbidden to eat of the Tree of Life. Eve did not have to go. But God knew she would go anyway, and told her what would happen as a result.

    Rom. 8:20-21 reads like this in The Source:

    Creation was joined to futility, not because it wanted to be, but because of him who made it so. Yet there was the hope that creation itself also would be set free from slavery to decay…

    We really need to be careful, especially with older translations, to make sure we have the correct understanding of the passage before we draw conclusions from them. This is made all the more difficult by known instances of deliberate mistranslation due to bias.

  145. Thanks technomom, that makes sense. :)
    It also solves the issue of single women (which was somewhat confusing to me, they don’t HAVE husbands! … I kinda thought, “DON’T GET MARRIED BECAUSE LOOK WHAT AWAITS YOU!!!”)
    Perhaps that sounds really REALLY dumb. But all you’d have to do is ask my 5 daughters… eg. My firstborn 23yod never dated yet, Beautiful, intelligent, godly, Christian, just accepted to med school for next year…
    Nothing about this patriarchy gig looks attractive, better off single. ((((Sigh)))))

    Pray for me. I have to go do God’s will: focus on hope, and pray that GOD will give us LIFE, and get some laundry done…

    CYA!

  146. Beth Moore’s study Beloved Disciple, Good study. I wasn’t allowed to be apart of that study because it’s a womens group (evangelical free church) At that moment that Church is really not FREE!

    149teknomom Great Great Point On Adam & Ms Eve! God only told the man..adam to leave not the woman. Is the word man applying to BOTH or just to Adam? Great Point I can’t state that enough! Without reading anything into the text/account, it makes alot of sense! I felt my spirit jump but in a good way! I’m printing that out!

  147. 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.

  148. Thank you for that info!

  149. 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.

  150. Hi Billy. Welcome!

    The problem that you are faced with if you take a position that Paul isn’t allowing a woman to speak while the “church” is assembled is that Paul does allow women to speak while the “church” is assembled in 1 Cor. 14. I believe that it is imperative that we work on an exegesis that will bring harmony to the passages in context. We wouldn’t want Paul to contradict himself or other clear passages.

  151. The phrase “anyone” is not refering to women, and it is clear that throughout the book of Acts the men are counted in the numbering of the church at Jerusalem. I Cor. 14:34 is the very passage that says a women is not permitted to speak. I know the arguement of it is in the context of tongues, but he uses the same language in I Tim 2. It is not cultural or for a specific time or place because in I Cor. 14 he takes it back to the law and in I Timothy 2 he takes it back to Adam and Eve. With this being the case it must be a role issue.

  152. I do believe women are of equal value to men, but clearly have different roles.

  153. The name “Priscilla’ is the english tranlation. In the Greek her name is SPELLED “Prisca” which means PRIEST! So her name should be spelled Prisca which is pronouned (Pre-si-a’). Her name means priest. I did alot of research on her name because I can across that spelling one day when I was checking the Greek to English! A good rule is to always look up the greek spelling and go from there, I did and look what I found out.

  154. Michael,

    I’m not sure where you got your information, but I would study again with a different source. The word Priscilla is transliterated from the Greek. The Greek word used for her name 5 times is a Diminutive of Prisca. Her name means “ancient”.

  155. “different roles”

    I always here that but it’s not found in scripture. For example who raises a child the mom or the dad…..quick answer, BOTH. The wife may stay home in the daytime and watch the kids so the husband may work then when he comes home, he should watch the kids so his wife can presue her Godly Callings, she can go to nightschool for bible courses or have a job etc. They have to work out a plan that works for them! The point is that Both (Husband/Wife) are to have an equal full share in the raising the kids/family life! This is for those who can have kids or want to have kids!

    Paul said Marriage is Honorable BUT singleness is prefered! Most people never check with God first! Is this Marriage going to help me/us do more for the Lord or will marriage hinder the Lords plans for me/us?!
    Marriage is not something you jump into!

    I never ruled marriage out for me (I’m 29yrs) but as of right now I can do more for the Lord in my singleness then if I was Married! For me Marriage would hinder my work for the Lord! I have the gift of singleness from God. Now if God gives me the gift of marriage one day our oneness/unity/teamwork will advance the Gospel better then if we were both single! It’s putting God first and His Will/Leading, not my own!

    Jesus broke alot of roles or traditions of his day because it was making the word of God void!

  156. 156Billy
    The phrase “anyone” is not refering to women, and it is clear that throughout the book of Acts the men are counted in the numbering of the church at Jerusalem. I Cor. 14:34 is the very passage that says a women is not permitted to speak. I know the arguement of it is in the context of tongues, but he uses the same language in I Tim 2. It is not cultural or for a specific time or place because in I Cor. 14 he takes it back to the law and in I Timothy 2 he takes it back to Adam and Eve. With this being the case it must be a role issue.

    Please back up your assertion that “anyone” is not refering to women”. Where does the Bible indicate that women cannot be in view? Are you referring to a specific verse, and if so, which one? We need to examine the context.

    The “law” you refer to in 1 Cor. 14 is not from the Bible; it cannot be found anywhere in the old testament. It is a rabbinical tradition and Paul is strongly refuting it. He has been writing this letter to answer questions put to him by the Corinthians, and there are no quotation marks in Greek. Instead, the quoted text is typically followed by “What??” or “Or” as it is in English translations. This is the same Paul who wrote Galatians, wherein he spent great effort to turn people away from the old laws. There is no precedent for Paul himself turning back to such laws in this or any other case.

    If you do some reading here before bringing up these already-refuted claims, it would save us having to repeat ourselves. As we’ve already shown, and Cheryl has so thoroughly shown, Paul’s referral to Adam and Eve is to explain why an inexperienced person taking a position as a teacher and teaching false doctrine is to be silenced, not all women. Eve was inexperienced and did not ever see God create anything, and so thought she could be like God. So Paul refers to the danger of false and ignorant teachers.

    Anyway, that’s all more thoroughly explained in documents here, please read them.

  157. 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.

  158. “That’s for your test!” misspelled

    Thanks for the test!

  159. Billy,

    Thanks for your comments here! We appreciate those who disagree agreeably. Now regarding what you said:

    The phrase “anyone” is not refering to women…

    The fact is that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14 that the “whole church” is gathered together and they all may prophesy. I know of no one who says that only men may prophesy and exegetes 1 Cor. 14 that way. Please explain from the context how you get everyone in the whole church as meaning only males. I believe that it is very important that we do not put our traditions into scripture and stop the ministry of anyone merely because of our human tradition.

    Truth is what is important and I appreciate your challenge. You have challenged in a very gracious manner. I hope that you see our challenge back in the same loving manner.

    Blessings!
    Cheryl

  160. My last comment of which you probably are very thankful.

    Until people are willing to take the scriptures for what they say, not add to them (huge assumptions taught as truth), and stop studying them through the eyes of today’s society this is a waste of time. The above statement about why Paul referred to Adam and Eve is absolutely ridiculous! Read the bigger context and stop picking out little words and trying to explain away the litteral writtings.

    God honors obedience not modern day assumptions. I say this with a spirit of love.

  161. Hi Billy,
    I always welcome comments from Pastors and highly respect what they say. Let me encourage you to study the entire issue because you call it ridiculous. God has blessed me with pastors who have repented of their view of women from seeing my DVD series and others who have written me saying that their eyes have been opened to things they have never before seen in scripture. The very first pastor who changed his mind because of the extensive documentation in “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” was a Southern Baptist Pastor.

    I would welcome your refutation of the series if you would care enough to view the material and refute it. No one yet has been able to provide a refutation and the series has been out about 2 years now. I am completely open to being corrected if you are able to do that in a spirit of love.

    When you have viewed the series and have your refutation, I think all of us on this blog would be very interested in your view and the holes that you have found in my argument. If you chose not to view the material that is fine but I think it would be best not to call something ridiculous until you have actually seen the complete argument.

  162. Oh and one final comment…..a big assumption that a part of the church has had is that God has different spiritual “roles” for different genders, different races and different social classes. Thankfully most of us have rejected the different spiritual “roles” for the races and now consider every race as equal in God’s eyes and equal in man’s eyes. But some still struggle with the issue of education and gender. If one doesn’t have a doctorate degree then that person is not spiritually equal in their “role” as teacher with the one who is merely “gifted” by God. I say let’s let God decide whom he gifts as that is a sovereign decision of God alone. When we stop looking down on bible teachers because of their skin color, their educational background or their gender, and recognize their gifting by God, we will be accepting what God alone can do – give gifts to his church.

  163. 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!

  164. 1 Tim Cha 2.

    The key to understanding the present
    passage, then, is to recognize that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing
    so (v. 11). They are to be “in full submission”; this is often taken to mean “to the men,” or “to their husbands,”
    but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel—which of course would be the same attitude required of male learners. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as “I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man”—the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority
    over women.” Why might Paul need to say this?

    Read Acts Cha. 19:21-41
    There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the primary religion—the biggest temple, the most famous shrine—was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.

    Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organizing male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, such that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line?

    That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis cult, but rather so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God is giving them.

  165. Thank you Michael for your great comments! The biggest issue is that in anyone’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 must include a coherent view of verse 15. Verse 15 is so carefully constructed that when one gets the previous verses wrong, verse 15 will not make sense. We must know who the “she” and the “they” are in verse 15 and be able to link back to them from verse 12 or else this passage cannot be interpreted without leaving out some of the inspired words and the inspired grammar. I say that we make sure that we stick to scripture and pay attention to the words and the grammar. This is especially true when we have difficult passages like this one. This passage is not impossible to understand. It is possible in context and verse 15 is so vitally important to verse 12 that without it verse 12 becomes a pretext for error.

  166. More back ground on the Ephesus infant Church and the City it was in!

    The great temple of Artemis in Ephesus was one of the
    seven wonders of the ancient world. The roof was
    supported by l27 columns that were 65 feet high (roughly
    seven storeys). The building was 221 feet wide and 425
    feet long. Within the temple as an institution, women
    exercised power on two levels. First, the temple was
    controlled by a group of virgins and castrated men. The
    latter were called Magabizes. Then second, under their
    control were thousands of female priestess-slaves called
    hierodules. There is specific evidence for priestesses,
    receptionists, supervisors, drummers, bearers of the
    sceptre, cleaners, acrobats, flute players and bankers. The
    economy of the town and province was profoundly linked
    to the temple as an institution (cf. Acts 19:23-29). The
    entire town set aside one month a year for ceremonies
    games and festivals connected to the cult.21 The focus of
    all of this was Artemis, a female goddess with rows of
    multiple breasts. Thus the Ephesians lived in a city and
    district where the huge seven-storey high temple, a
    wonder of the world, dominated the skyline. As an
    institution it was naturally a powerful force in all aspects
    of their lives. The focus of all this was a goddess whose
    worship was controlled by virgins who shared leadership
    with males only if they were castrated.
    In such an atmosphere, what kind of female-male
    relations would have developed? What possibility would
    any male religious leadership have had for a sense of
    dignity and self-respect? What kind of female attitudes
    would have prevailed in such a city? How easy would it
    have been for the values of the society to have penetrated
    the Church? Castration being the ultimate violence
    against the male, would not anti-male sexism in various
    forms have been inevitable?.

  167. I watched WIM disc 3 on 1 Tim 2 to refresh my mind! We need to know the “She” and “They”. Your right and I’m in full agreement with your research and teaching on it.
    I was just showing another side (on the same side) that goes with your research. That one woman that was in false teaching/error would be “Murdering” a man (Her Husband)! My “support view” on 1 Tim 2 helps people understand what the infant Church was up against… A Full Blown Goddress Cult At That!

  168. 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!

  169. I’m trying to find the research on the name and Meaning “Prisca”! I just wish I could remember, I hate when that happens.

    English form “Priscilla” the meaning is: “ancient”

    But in the Greek it’s spelled “Prisca” and this spelling form means: Priest! It even sounds like our english word Priest only with a “sia” sound on the end of it. I think I was looking up Royal Priesthood in The Book Of Revelation and I saw a similar spelling.

    My question is why not tranlate her name right from the Greek?Why add two L’s in there when the Greek doesn’t have it! Why change her name….it’s just like the issue with the name “Junia”! What are the tranlators hiding? also why put her name second when in the Greek it was first! Once again what are they hiding…..Female Leadership!

    Any info or thoughts on this would be great!

  170. Here is my research:

    Yes, billy is correct, her name is means: “ancient” see the link in post # 162

    However tranlators like to use/put the spelling “Priscilla” because the spelling/pronounment of “Prisca” sounds to much like the word Priest! Plus some tranlators try and also put her name in second place/postion instead of first!

    With the above stated why go through all that trouble on the spelling of her name and putting/listing her in second postion! The answer: Because the tranlators put there own ideas into the text instead of letting the Bible text speak for itself! They didn’t want the reader to know a woman was in Leadership over a man.

    ALL (Believers) are a Royal Priesthood! End of Story!

  171. I won’t add to the deluge of Biblical stuff here, but I’ll say this. I like Matt’s site and his teaching, but I do believe that he is slightly blinkered on this issue and possibly has allowed pride to enter in, in his noble attempt never to allow man’s comfort to adjust what the Bible actually teaches. However, when you reach the stage when saying ‘What does it actually SAY???’ becomes something of your mantra, perhaps religion has crept in there? Who knows. I’m suggesting that I think on this issue of women as Pastors, Matt Slick is wrong. To err is human, though. I hope and pray that he would never show disrespect to a Pastor, Elder or Teacher who was a woman.

    I am a woman. I am called to be Pastoral (though not to run a church, at least so far God hasn’t ever spoken to me about that aspect of ministry). I believe the whole of scripture, including the teachings of Christ Himself point towards the role of a Pastor/Elder (shepherd in the greek) as one of great sacrifice and servanthood. It in no way advocates a woman OR a man having some sort of ego trip or powergame in politics in the local church. Such things are carnal, fleshly and frankly have nothing to do with gender since either gender can equally sin in this way. When Jesus talked about the first being last and the last being first, when He washed His followers feet and so on, there was no ego in these actions. The work of a Pastor is never glamourous unless it is simply God blessing you for a season. In my experience of walking with The LORD, it is probably the least glamourous and powertrippy way to live your life, because you’re as likely to find yourself sitting in a gutter at 2am with a drunk person spilling their guts out to you (both literally and figuratively!) as you are to be standing on a platform reading aloud to lines of men in suits, listening to your every word.

    In short, I believe that either gender can be called to any ministry and in fact in the Bible there are several examples of women in ministry and positions of leadership, OT and NT. We all understand that many men don’t like the idea of a woman ‘telling them what to do’, but a deeper knowledge of Jesus reveals the fallacy in this – if the Pastor is moving in the Spirit of God, then Jesus is speaking. God is ministering through His hands and His feet in the world, and who is any man or woman to scorn the mere vessel of His works? Test the vessel and the words of the vessel. Test everything, and look for fruit. But I think it is a folley of an person of either gender to misunderstand what the role of a Pastor is. If someone comes to you in the name of The LORD and you test them, then if they are of The LORD, one best honour them as you would honour The LORD.

  172. Kim,
    Wonderful words of wisdom, thank you! The issue certainly is about ego vs humble service. The desire of women to serve the body of Christ in their gifting should not result in an accusation that these women want the spotlight or want to rule over the men. The fact is exactly as you have pointed it out. “Ruling over” others is a worldly thing that has not been given to the leaders of the church.

    I too hope that Matt comes to a knowledge of the truth on this issue. His attitude towards me has been very disrespectful and unkind and I understand that I am not the only woman teacher that he has been disrespectful to. We have been told to love one another and to treat each other with great respect. If we all follow Jesus’ instructions in this manner, we will come into that oneness in the body of Christ that Christ has called us to. Surely then the world will take notice that we have been with Jesus.

  173. 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)

  174. 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.

  175. Hi Metacrock,
    I would love to post on your board but right now I am up to my ears in alligators. We are working on a DVD on the Trinity and we are in the midst of setting up a new corporation in the US and so there is major work involved in that.

    Regarding my interpretation on 1 Timothy 2:15, this is an interpretation that answers why the verse in in the passage and how it connects to both chapters one and two.

    I have researched other interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:15 and there are holes and problems with every other interpretation.

    For example you write:

    “It is not saying that child birth is the means of her salvation, but rather that it is an ordeal through which her election to the Kingdom will reamin secure.”

    This is a problem in a couple of areas. The first problem is that nowhere is a woman’s salvation in question in scripture. The second problem is that “the childbirth” is a noun and not a verb so if we are going to pay attention to the inspired words, we wouldn’t get an action out of what is clearly a noun. The third problem is that the interpretation about a woman’s salvation being secure through the child birth process has nothing to do with the stopping of “a woman” from teaching. Paul specifically says “for” “and” and “but” in verses 13-15 connecting these verses all together with verses 11 & 12. You also said:

    “Now Paul is not saying that women must earn God’s protection through holy living. But what else is going to say? He’s trying to quealch a movment toward immorality in the chruch, and immoral living does open us up to spirtual dangers. He’s just saying that if women stay in a close walk with the Lord they will be protected from the spirutal dangers.”

    The problem with this interpretation is that it does not connect together with verse 12 and this interpretation makes the verse stand out like a sore thumb. Also Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 1 is not immorality but false teaching and false teachers. If you say that women staying in a close walk with the Lord, they will be protected from the spiritual dangers of giving birth, this doesn’t make sense since there are no spiritual dangers in giving birth. I have also never seen any documentation that shows that giving birth was attached to a loss of salvation so this doesn’t appear plausible along with the other problems in the verse.

    If you haven’t seen my DVD set yet, you will want to get a copy. The argument is set out step by step on the entire passage if you can find any holes in my argument once you have seen the entire argument, I would welcome you to show them to me.

  176. you have not looked at my version because you wont find one like mine. Your Greek is very bad. you are trying to make words say things they don’t mean.

    there is no way on this earth that “I do not permit a woman to teach” mens “a particular woman.” If that’s what he meant he would have said “I do not permit this woman to teach” “I do not permit that woman to teach” something like that. But “i do not permit a woman to teach, but if they will remain in faith ect ect they will be saved in child birth.” that makes perfect sense and its’ pluarl. It’s speaking of all women, or of all women on Ephesus at aleast.

    The answer is much more simple. It means the were afarid of evil spirits, especially in child birth because that’s what the gnostics taught, that child birth is evil. The whole point of silencing women was to silence the particular group of gnostic women who had were claiming the authority then had in pagan circles, only in the church. Paul is saying a woman will be kept safe in child birth by faith. it’s not about the birth of Christ, the child bearing, that is unnecessary. It can just as easily be read as child brith.

  177. sorry. I didn’t mean to be dogmatic and grouph. I’ve been on carm all day. My Greek is no great shakes. I studied it as my undergraduate language, but it was always hard. Your view tennable.I didn’t mean to make it sound as though your view is bad and mine is so great. it’s speculative anways, my view, all views.

    I admire what you are doing I hope you are not offended.

  178. 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.

  179. Metacrock,

    One other thing and this is the thing that I find very sad about CARM. It is easy to come away with a bad attitude when one sticks around CARM too much. There is so much bickering there and the love of the Lord does not shine through from the leadership at CARM. This is not the way it should be. When we are correcting others we need to do it in a gentle way remembering that the brother or sister in Christ belongs to us. In the body of Christ we are joined together and when we strike out at another brother in Christ, we are hurting our own selves. We are also being disobedient and God doesn’t bless disobedience. I would pray that the spirit that is prevalent at CARM would change and that there would come a spirit of humility and brokenness. God promises to lift up the broken vessel who is humble. He also promises to resist the proud. It is to our benefit to check our spirit and deal with a prideful spirit. It is not Christ-honoring to have a consistent attitude of attacking other Christians over secondary matters of faith.

  180. There’s also the crucial fact as well, that we are not saved through any actions but through grace ALONE (so childbirth certainly cannot save anyone as an action, though to do so itself is morally neutral scriptually speaking, since men cannot give birth and are considered as saved as a woman is) and also that in the same book of scripture as the discussed verse(s), we see women prophetesses! Now, how can a woman prophecy if she cannot speak in the local church? It is maddness and insecurity to even fathom that Paul was saying no woman should speak or teach in church. I think from all the greek scholars we have, the prevailing and sensical view is that this church had specific problems, some relating to women and that Paul was adressing these.

    After all, the Bible ‘actually says’ pluck out your eye if it has caused you to sin’. I don’t know many men who have ever suffered from the sin of pornography/lust who have taken this scripture in a literal fashion, because we know what Jesus was talking about – He was making a strong point. But beign saved by Him cleanses the whole body, so clearly no hand-chopping is required. I think sometimes, the whole ‘but that’s what the Bible actually says!’ thing can become a mantra to certain teachers.

  181. It is sad that Matt says that he is a Christian he is kind of a JERK and a terrible model for christian men. He was so disrespectful to you and you were so gracious. God bless you and I think you are completely correct. I am so ashamed… So mean and un-Christlike!

Leave a Reply

*

Text formatting is available via select HTML. <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>