1 Timothy 2:15

[OopsMartin]

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The Greek word here is aner with the male marking. He is not using an inclusive form.

Further, if false doctrine is the concern of 2:12, then why doesn't Paul use heterodidaskaleō (from verse 3) instead of didaskō in verse 12?

Really, there is nothing in the immediate context that would lead me to believe Paul is talking about false teachers in 2:12 and it's a stretch to attempt a justification for this from the broad context. There is no clear link between 1 Tim 1:3,7 and 1 Tim 2:12 such that we should conclude 2:12 is talking about false teachers.

-Neopatriarch

Please tell me you are not trying to claim that only men can speak false doctrines. Whatever happened to your idea that women are easily deceived. does that mean you think women can be deceived but they somehow lose the ability to "share" their deceptions?

yeeeesh.

OBVIOUSLY, if Adam had not listened to his wife. . . Instead of taking control of the situation, he allowed her to take control. . .

Since Eve was easily disceved she became a false teacher and spread that deception to her husband. The sin here was not eating the fruit.

Listening to his wife wasn't the error, but listening and heeding her suggestion when he knew it was wrong. Remember he wasn't deceived, he knew and did it anyway. Neither the first man or the first woman had any concept of "controlling". Frankly that is the sin of the system of this world. But one we cannot escape because of the prince of the power of the air who influences all those he can.

Scriptures say that the serpent was the cleverest of all creatures. this does not paint a picture of easy deception but one of great cunning. Eve did not teach her husband anything. He already knew she was wrong, but did it anyway. And she only offered him the fruit to eat, she did not teach. The serpent was the only false teacher in that scenario.

I'm so amazed at how difficult it is to stick only to what Scriptures say, when a favorite privilege is jeopardized by truth. We must have our special privileges no matter who we offend in the process.

[Guest Biblicist]

Listening to his wife wasn't the error, but listening and heeding her suggestion when he knew it was wrong. Remember he wasn't deceived, he knew and did it anyway. Neither the first man or the first woman had any concept of "controlling". Frankly that is the sin of the system of this world. But one we cannot escape because of the prince of the power of the air who influences all those he can.

Scriptures say that the serpent was the cleverest of all creatures. this does not paint a picture of easy deception but one of great cunning. Eve did not teach her husband anything. He already knew she was wrong, but did it anyway. And she only offered him the fruit to eat, she did not teach. The serpent was the only false teacher in that scenario.

I'm so amazed at how difficult it is to stick only to what Scriptures say, when a favorite privilege is jeopardized by truth. We must have our special privileges no matter who we offend in the process.

WOAH! Hold it!

While this conversation has merits, and is quite interesting. I have completely lost sight of the original question and I do not see how this connects to that. Maybe if we coudl get back to the OP?

[Guest Biblicist]

Ok, just listened to this from Blue Letter Bible.org ---> Link I hope it works for you. It's a comentary by Dr. J. Vernon McGee [i like listening to him, he's got a nice speaking voice]

I'll try to write what he says verbatum, bear with me.

It was the sin of eve that brought sin into the world, and through child bearing, every time she brings someone into the world she brings a sinner into the world, that's all she can bring into the world. But Mary brought into the world the Lord Jesus. She brought the Saviour into the World and women are saved by what, childbearing, Mary brought the Saviour into the world, and don't ever say that woman brought sin into the world until you are prepared to say that woman brought the Saviour into the world. And my friend, no man provided a saviour, a woman did. However, a woman is saved by faith the same as man is saved by faith and she's to grow in love and holiness the same as man. That's all that Paul is saying here.

[jewelz123]

That may not have been a curse in so many words, but it gave the woman a harder time than necessary when bringing a child into the world.

Wasn't a curse according to what God himself spoke saying what was actualy cursed. He is the one who said the ground and the serpent are cursed and He is the one who didn't miss a thing.

In this section of 1Tim 2:15, the context is once again the relationship and order between a man and a woman, and what is required of them.

1Timothy 2:9 Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense; not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel,

1Ti 2:10 but with good works, as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God.

1Ti 2:11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission.

1Ti 2:12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was created first, then Eve.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

1Ti 2:15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.

You can certainly chose to believe the passage to be saying that BUT what you cannot show is where the passage does actualy say that or speak of somekind of man/woman order therefore you are forcing your own preconcevied notions unto the text.

It is as if the pain in childbirth is a 'memorial pain' that is personal to every woman ever created, and that no man can experience, it is a reminder that Eve did not come first, and that it was the woman who was deceived.

You are kidding about birthing pains (pre fall) being a reminder to woman that she was created second, right? And even to those who do not believe in the bible? So by virtue of being created second the female is reminded of it by birthing pains, lol. Can you find that in the bible too? Birthing pains post fall are an effect of what Eve did, that is she ate and gave some to her husband. God did say to her 'what is this you have done?'

...and through child-bearing she now has a further role to play hence 'saved through child bearing',

Paul isn't speaking about 'women' and 'men' as he was in the immediate verses regarding worship. He's talking about a particular deceived woman, hence, 'she', in Ephesus. Childbearing also isn't a role to be played, lol, as even not all women can have children.

1Ti 2:15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.

The first pronoun is singular 'she' as in 'but she will be saved through the childbirth'. Also in the Greek it is a noun for 'childbirth' not a verb as in 'childbearing'. And too the second pronoun is plural 'they' not a singular 'she' as in 'if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.'

15Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

It

[inhistime]

I have listed the different interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:15 in my DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" There has been much confusion with this verse and how it relates to the entire context of 1 Timothy and it certainly fits into what Peter said were some of Paul's hard sayings.

Interesting that you would use the term "confusion" when speaking of interpreting God's word. God is a God of order. Satan is the King of Confusion.

I don't believe that God meant for it to be so difficult for us to understand. What would be the roadblock for those who are confused to understand this passage of scripture?

Although there are passages that are difficult to understand and which require much work to "rightly divide the word of truth", God meant for us to understand what he wrote.

What would be the roadblock for those who are confused and seemingly unable to understand this passage of scripture? I see two roadblocks. The first roadblock is that the grammar in this passage. The grammar cannot be ignored or the passage cannot be understood. Paul uses several one-of-a-kind words and specific grammar. The childbearing is a noun and is thus a one-of-a-kind usage in this particular passage. Paul changes from plural to singular several times which also has caused problems. Typically the "she" is ignored in 1 Timothy 2:15 so that some bible translations say "women" will be saved... The problem here is that the feminine is singular and the "they" is not plural feminine. When one ignores these specialized pieces of grammar, the passage is full of confusion.

[inhistime]

- First of all, as far as Paul is concerned....If he had said "God told me..." then YES, I would believe that his information came directly from God. But the phrase "God said...." is more subjective. It does not discredit the validity of the words being said, but it also doesn't specify a first-hand or second-hand account....only what those words are. There is no object...only a subject.

It matters not whether God told one person or the entire human race, the fact is that when someone says "God said" they are either telling the truth or they are lying. If the Bible let's the words stand without contradiction and with no charge of sin, they it is indeed what God said. If one is on the witness stand, the court does not discredit a witness because they heart the accused say something to someone else. The emphasis is on the truthfulness of what is reported, not on the fact that the report was given to only one person.

- Second of all, regarding the serpent.....If the term "you" used in this phrase is actually referring to BOTH of them, then it is applying to 2 different sets of commandments....the serpent only mentions Adam's command. Why, if he was speaking to Eve, would he not have incorporated the aspect of touching rather than eating?

The importance was on eating. God said that it was the eating that would bring death. God forbade Eve to touch the fruit because he knew that if she touched it she would eat, but the actual penalty came with the eating. This is what the serpent had to attack.

We know that Satan is much too crafty to leave out some basic information such as this....so then, if God directly told Eve not to touch the fruit, then why wouldn't Satan have made mention of this?

Because he was going for the "kill". He wanted her to eat the fruit. God is the one who knew that if she touched the fruit she would be tempted to eat it. Satan did not know her heart and he couldn't be sure. He must tempt her to eat the fruit so that she would die.

[inhistime]

It has nothing to do with whether God's word is true or not!!!!! Like I said, just because another person quotes God's commandment does not nullify the commandment's validity, because they are STILL GOD'S WORDS!!!!

When God made the 10 commandments known to Israel through Moses, I'm sure that the Israelites didn't say "well, Moses said that God said...." These commandments were directly from God, and just because Moses delivered them doesn't mean that they were any less God's.

I really don't see why this is such a point of contention? I'm not saying that I'm absolutely, positively right in my assessment, but I also don't see where the Bible directly refutes it, either.

The account of where Eve got the commandment is not specified.

It is not specified if you are looking for God to say that he told Eve. It is not specified if you are looking for Adam to say he told Eve. Yet Eve gave her testimony and we are not free to disregard her testimony just because she is a woman.

The Jewish tradition said that a woman was not allowed to testify in a court of law because her testimony was thought to be untrustworthy. The Talmud makes many remarks about women that rates them on the level of either brainless creatures or it places them in the category of the animals. Now there are some Rabbis who did seem to have some respect for women but the prevailing thought was that women were not to be trusted. Is it possible that these prejudices have filtered down to us without our even knowing it? Think about it this way - would we even be having this discussion if it was Adam who said "God said"? People seem to be reluctant to believe Eve. However if one is not going to accept Eve's testimony that it was God who told her something unique that was very applicable to her character, then let's accept the silence of God on the matter. Is it in God's character to remain silent on sin? Should not there be at least one place in scripture that charges Eve with sin if indeed Eve did add to the words of God? Adding to God's words whether heard directly or indirectly was a sin. The silence of God regarding this "sin" is very telling. It simply isn't in God's character to remain silent on sin.

[inhistime]

This is a good discussion.

Question:

If God didn't hold Adam accountable as Eve's spiritual advisor and her "pastor" within their relationship, why didn't he go to Eve first since she was the one who had the conversation with Satan/The Serpent? SHE spoke to the serpent, she took the food, she ate it first, she gave it to Adam. How come God didn't come down on her first? Oh, wait, I know, "Adam, you should know better, you're older."

Frankly, if in fact Eve lied and twisted or added to what God said about the fruit, I don't see God "calling her on it. He didn't point out their specific sins, he made a general sweeping statement. "Who told you you were naked?" "What is this that you have done?" He gave them the opportunity to confess. Just as a loving father does. Allows the opportunity for repentance. This is a beautiful picture of sin, confession, repentance, and forgiveness. Adam and Eve did not just disobey God, they also refused to accept responsibility for their actions. Instead they pointed fingers. She did it, He did it, The Serpant did it. The Butler did it.

How different things would have been for them had they said, "Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned in your sight."

You ask some very good questions. Why didn't God come down on Eve first? There are two reasons. The first reason is that Eve was deceived. The second reason is that Adam was not deceived so he was fully and completely responsible for his sin and for the consequence of his sin. Because of the difference in the reason for their sin, God held Adam accountable. Adam sinned in deliberate rebellion and Eve fell into sin. Adam then was the one who brought sin into the world and he is in the highest position of responsibility so God went to him first.

When you say that Eve refused to accept responsibility for her sin, I think that scripture contradicts that. She said that she ate and she rightly said that her intention was not to sin in rebellion. She fell into sin and so there is that part of the blame on the serpent. On the other hand Adam was not deceived and he had no reason to sin. He blamed the one who was deceived for his sin. He is the one who passed the buck illegally. Scripture never says that he sinned by temptation by Eve but he blames her. Eve's excuse is upheld by scripture. Adam's excuse is not.

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Ok, just listened to this from Blue Letter Bible.org ---> Link I hope it works for you. It's a comentary by Dr. J. Vernon McGee [i like listening to him, he's got a nice speaking voice]

I'll try to write what he says verbatum, bear with me.

It was the sin of eve that brought sin into the world, and through child bearing, every time she brings someone into the world she brings a sinner into the world, that's all she can bring into the world. But Mary brought into the world the Lord Jesus. She brought the Saviour into the World and women are saved by what, childbearing, Mary brought the Saviour into the world, and don't ever say that woman brought sin into the world until you are prepared to say that woman brought the Saviour into the world. And my friend, no man provided a saviour, a woman did. However, a woman is saved by faith the same as man is saved by faith and she's to grow in love and holiness the same as man. That's all that Paul is saying here.

Hey, Biblicist;

In this case, then, wouldn't women AND men be saved through childbearing?

Why is Paul singling out women only?

The way I see it, the point is not who ate first, or who brought sin into the world.

Both sexes sinned....both need God's redemption. Why is it only the woman who is mentioned?

Am I totally daft on this?

[DarkNebulaWelder]

. Paul changes from plural to singular several times which also has caused problems. Typically the "she" is ignored in 1 Timothy 2:15 so that some bible translations say "women" will be saved... The problem here is that the feminine is singular and the "they" is not plural feminine.