1 Timothy 2:15

[methinkshe]

Even today we have quite a few in the church who are teaching heresy, (eternal subordinationism for one).

That's an interesting title for a heresy, even though it is a grammarian's nightmare. What, exactly, comprises the heresy of "eternal subordinationism"? Does it include, for instance, the eternal (and willing) subordination of Jesus' will to the Father's? I'd be interested to learn more of the doctrine of "eternal subordinationism."

Ruth

[OopsMartin]

Even today we have quite a few in the church who are teaching heresy, (eternal subordinationism for one).

That's an interesting title for a heresy, even though it is a grammarian's nightmare. What, exactly, comprises the heresy of "eternal subordinationism"? Does it include, for instance, the eternal (and willing) subordination of Jesus' will to the Father's? I'd be interested to learn more of the doctrine of "eternal subordinationism."

Ruth

Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity

you can find it on Amazon....

[firehill]

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]

methinkshe said:

Suppose the fruit was accidentally touched? Suppose one of the fruits had dropped on the ground and Adam or Eve accidentally kicked it? In any event, temptation doesn't always lead to sin. Jesus was tempted but did not sin. And as the saying goes: you may not be able to stop the birds flying over your head, but you can stop them nesting in your hair. To argue that touching would necessarily lead to death, is to argue that temptation necessarily leads to sin - and we know that is not true.

Eve's testimony is that God said that she was not to eat the fruit or to touch it. In context the touching it would be deliberate to examine the fruit and to long after it. In the end that is exactly what happened.

Touching in and of itself does not have to lead to death. It may or it may not. Therefore a commandment not to touch is inaccurate in the context of "if you touch OR eat you will die." The commandment would more accurately read along the lines of: "If you touch you could possibly die, but if you eat you will die." Or even: "If you touch AND eat, you will die." I find it difficult to believe that God's commandment on which hinged the future of the whole of humanity could have been as ambiguously phrased as you suggest.

God's words weren't ambiguous at all. Eve completely understood Him. She knew that the prohibition resulting in death was eating the fruit. Yet she also knew that she was commanded not to touch the fruit lest she be tempted and die. God is all wise and if he said that her touching the fruit could result in her being tempted to eat then that is the truth. Either God knows the future and he knows their character well because he made them or Eve lied. I choose to just believe the bible and believe God's word and Eve's testimony.

However, if I had to make a guess that is consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture, I'd say that it was because the single commandment God had given to Adam and Eve was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. We do not read that God commanded Eve not to tell fibs or practice embroidery on God's Words.

What you are implying then is that sin is not sin unless God commands them not to do something. That is completely untrue. Take the case of Cain and Able. God did not say "Thou shalt not kill", yet it was still a sin to kill. What is sin is sin. God has given us a conscience so that we are without excuse. No, your reasoning does not work. Eve did not sin nor was she charged with sin. Eve's testimony was true and you have given no reason for her to lie.

In any event, sin had not entered the world at the point when Eve added to God's words, sin entered the world the moment Adam ate of the fruit. Furthermore, we know that without the law, sin is not imputed. (Romans 5:13).

Well let's just test your interpretation by scripture to see if you have understood it correctly. If sin is not counted against a person before the 10 commandments came, then there could be no curse at all on man. Yet God cursed Cain (God did not curse Adam, but he did curse Cain). Genesis 4:7 says:

"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

God warned Cain that his anger must be dealt with or it would get the better of him and cause him to sin. That is exactly what happened and after Cain killed Abel God said to Cain in Gen. 4:11

"Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."

Cain sinned and was cursed yet God had not said "Do not murder". No, your interpretation does not stand up to the test. Eve had a conscience as God placed that within each of us from creation and if she had lied and added to God's word, she would have been rebuked just as Cain was.

[inhistime]

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.

In this case Mr. McGee is wrong because he contradicts scripture. Paul said that by one man sin came into the world. It was a Jewish tradition that blamed the woman, but scripture does not blame her. If she had been the one that had brought sin into the world, then she would have passed that inherited sin nature on to the Messiah. But it was the man who brought sin into the world not the woman. Eve's seed was not tainted with sin and that is why it is vital that there was the virgin birth. The Messiah had to be born without original sin so that he could die for us. If he had original sin he would not have been the sinless, spotless lamb.

That's pretty funny, how many men do you know have given birth to babies? Goodness, that would certainly be one for the record books.

Mr. McGee is not blaming woman for the original sin brought into the world. Obviously, he is speaking physically, which is what Paul is speaking about, physical childbearing. And in case you don't realize it, women can't have babies without the "seed" of a MAN. There was only one (1) egg, in the entire history of the world, fertilized in a woman's womb that wasn't fertilized by a man's seed. As of yet they have not discovered a way to "create" a child without using and egg from a woman and sperm from a man. Mary did not have that seed when she bore Jesus. She carried and birthed the Saviour. There is really no other way to say that. Women bring sinners into the world every time they give birth. Mary was the only one with the privelage of bringing a sinless child into the world.

May I respectfully say that I don't think you clearly read what I wrote? Where did I say that men give birth to babies?

As far as Mr. McGee, he would be wrong if he was speaking about original sin and he would also be wrong if he was talking about passing on the sin nature to the children. The sin nature comes from the man alone. God has so clearly laid this out for us in the Old Testament when he made the symbol for sin as the foreskin. That is why the foreskin had to be removed for the male to enter the Covenant. The male children were required to have their foreskin cut off to enter into the Old Covenant and any that still had their foreskin were rejected. Yet women were accepted into the Covenant without any cutting off of any skin. Why? Because the sin nature is not passed on through the woman. God has said that the first man brought sin into the world. It was his seed that became tainted by his rebellion. Romans 5:14 says that death reigned because of the "offense of Adam". It was by the transgression of the one that man died Romans 5:15. Romans 5:17 says that the transgression of the one death reigned and verse 18 says that there was condemnation to all men. The seed of the man is what passes on the sin nature. The seed of the woman does not pass on the sin nature and that is why the Messiah had to come from a virgin.

Because we all inherit the sin nature from the seed of the man, spiritually all of us are told that we must cut off the foreskin of our hearts. All of us are tainted by the sin nature, but only the man passes it on to his seed. Look up the word "foreskin" in a concordance and you will see some amazing things that God has said concerning the sin nature.

[inhistime]

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. .

This is EXACTLY where I got confused...the fact that the tenses switch from singular to plural, which convolutes the object.

WOW...When I started this topic, I was expecting only a few simple responses, and now here it is, 12 pages later!!!

I guess you hit a hot topic, eh?

God refered to Adam and Eve as one, which is the way He normally refered to the two of them,

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

If the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher of the same order as those in 1 Timothy 1:3 and 6 or in 19 and 20, then Paul would not exhort her to continue in faith and holiness, with self-control.

There are two different kinds of false teachers in chapter 1. The first kind of false teacher teaching error are those who haven't a clue what they are doing. In 1 Timothy 1:6, 7 Paul says about them:

For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

We notice several things about these teachers. We notice that they are straying from "these things". What are "these things"? The verse before tells us love, a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. These are the things they seemed to have had, but they strayed away. We also see what "strange doctrines" they are teaching. Verse 4 says they are myths and endless genealogies. Do you know anyone who teaches that a Christian can be demon possessed by a generational curses going back 25 generations? Bob Larson teaches these things and he tells people to research their genealogy to find out the faults of their ancestors so they can "break the curse". People are wasting their time by going back to past generations when scripture tells us that we are the ones who need to repent of our own sin. These are the things leading people into myths and constant cycles of finding the sins of their ancestors so they can be freed of their own sin. Nonsense.

Next Paul tells us another important thing about these false teachers. They are deceived just as he was. In verse 7 Paul says that they are ignorant of the truth and then in verse 13 Paul says that he too had acted ignorantly in unbelief. These are the false teachers that Paul is concerned about and Paul has a heart of love and compassion for them. For this group of people teaching error, Paul says they must be stopped from teaching and they must be taught the truth.

But what of those who are deceivers? Paul has a completely different approach for them. Do you know why? Because you cannot change a deceiver by teaching them the truth. Deceivers are in a class of their own. They are deceivers because they know better and they lie and distort the truth. While the deceived haven't a clue what they are doing in their error, the deceivers are cunning and lie in wait to deceive their victims. Paul doesn't send these deceivers into the church to be taught. He kicks them out of the church and hands them over to Satan. The woman who is stopped from teaching in chapter two is not a deceiver who must be kicked out of the church. Paul said that she must learn in quietness. That means that she is capable of learning so she must be one of the group of the deceived teachers and she is certainly not one of the deceivers.

But Paul does exhort her to continue in faith and holiness, with self-control. Therefore, the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a false teacher of the same order as those in 1 Timothy 1:3 and 6 or in 19 and 20.

Read chapter 1 again and see how differently Paul categorizes the false teachers of 1 Timothy 1:3 & 6 compared to verses 19 & 20. Do you see the difference? Do you see that he names the deceivers but he does not name even one of the deceived? Do you see that he classifies the deceived as ignorant, but condemns the deceivers as those who have rejected the faith? Can we put these two groups of people together? No. Paul separates them. They are not the same.

Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support. (from point 1 at your site)

When you look at the context in 1 Timothy 1:3-11 you can see that Paul is referring to men who teach something other than the gospel that was entrusted to Paul (v. 11).

Obviously the error that they were teaching is serious. However the difference that Paul is making is that the first group has fallen into deception by their unbelief and through ignorance. The second group has completely shipwrecked their faith. They have not kept the faith or a good conscience (verse 19).

Apparently, they taught that salvation was obtained by observing myths based on the law rather than by God grace.

Paul doesn't equate the first group in chapter 1 with a distortion of the gospel. Instead he says that they are practicing "endless genealogies" and following myths. They also want to teach the law, but they have no clue what it means. I have given you an example of a person today following the "endless genealogies" regarding casting demons out of Christians and making them look for a cause for their sin in their ancestors. That is a myth and supports the "endless genealogies" yet it is not directly attacking the gospel. I think you have read into the passage something that is not there. Paul was a strong gospel preacher and if these people were attacking the gospel, Paul would certainly have said so. After all he exposed Hymenaeus who said the resurrection had already happened. That is a complete rejection of the gospel.

Consequently, if you are going to use 1 Timothy 1:3-7 as a contextual argument to support your claim that the woman in 2:12 is a false teacher, then to be consistent you should say that this woman is a false teacher on the same order as the false teachers in 1 Timothy 1:3-7 since, in context, that is what Paul is concerned with.

That is true. These false teachers were deceived just as the woman teaching in chapter 2 that Paul has stopped from teaching.

He says, "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine." And it does appear that, whatever the false teachers were teaching, it is something different than the gospel that was entrusted to Paul. This means the false teachers were heretics.

You have gone beyond scripture here. Paul says "different doctrine". He didn't say a "different gospel". Paul was a forth-right gospel man and if the gospel was being attack he would have stated it. He said that anyone who brought a different gospel was to be accursed (Galatians 1:8). He did not say these deceived teachers were accursed. He said that they were ignorant.

Paul would not tell someone who is teaching false doctrine (a different gospel) to continue in faith and holiness, with self-control. Those in 1 Timothy 1:3-7 are not in the faith and they are not holy. There is no continuing what has not already begun.

Again you are adding in to the scripture. They were teaching a different doctrine but he did not say a different gospel. He also said that some had strayed away from a sincere faith so it would be consistent to tell the woman that she need to continue in the faith. The false teachers had started on the right path. When Paul says that she need to continue in faith and holiness, he is saying that this is where her heart is. She has been deceived, but her heart wants the truth. She has been in the faith and needs to set aside the false doctrine, have self-control to stay away from it and continue in learning and practicing the true faith. Paul is not giving this advice to a deceiver as a deceiver could not be said to "continue in faith". But one who has a heart for God and who has been deceived into error can be told to continue in faith and holiness and love for God and self-control. These things come after one has learned the truth. She must learn. She must have self-control. She will be okay if she follows this direction. In fact the grammar is specific in that Paul says that he is "not now allowing a woman...." The grammar right there says that it is not meant to be forever. Right now she is not able to teach because she is confused and in error. But Paul believes she will obtain salvation because God will grant her mercy just as he did to Eve. Paul believes that some day she will be in a position to teach the truth. But right now, for this time, she must be stopped.

In conclusion, there are good reasons to think that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a heretic if you believe she is one of the false teachers Paul talks about in 1 Timothy 1:3-11. And you would have to conclude Paul is telling this heretic to continue in faith and holiness with self-control, which is absurd. Otherwise, you should reject the contextual link you're attempting to make between 1 Timothy 1:3,7 and 1 Timothy 2:12.

I certainly appreciate your willingness to look at scripture, but I ask you once again to look at the division that Paul has made between the false teachers at the beginning of the chapter and the heretics in verses 19 & 20. Do you see the difference?

Now I would like to challenge you again. If you believe that Paul in chapter 2 is not stopping a woman who has been deceived, and you believe with all your heart that Paul is stopping godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then I would like you to exegete the passage to show me how this would fit with the context of chapters 1 and 2. I would like you also to explain to me why Paul didn't say that Timothy was left behind to stop the false deceived teachers AND the women from teaching. If all women no matter whether they are deceived and teaching error or if they are women of faith teaching the truth are to be equally stopped, then where is the evidence of this in the context?

Lastly I would like to challenge you with one other thing. God is a God of holiness and he hates sin. Because God loves us so much he has warned us over and over again about sin to turn away from sin and turn back to him. If you read the Old Testament you will find God sending prophet after prophet and warning over and over again about the same sins. There is no question about what is sin and no question regarding God pleading with the Israelites to stop sinning. Now think about this one thing. If God has forbidden godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then women who teach men are sinning again God. Would you agree with me? Then can you tell me why God placed this "sin" within a passage that has been so difficult to understand that the church has had problems with it for 2,000 years? Why did he place this "sin" in a passage that deals with the stopping of false teachers and false doctrine? Didn't he care that this "sin" may not be recognized because the verses around verse 12 were about deception and immediately after verse 12 God mentions the deception of Eve? Why did God never repeat this prohibition? Does he not love women enough to warn them over and over again so that they can be sure of what their sin is so that they can turn away from sin? Why is every sin in the entire bible repeated at least once, most repeated many, many times, but the sin of godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men is never repeated? Is it possible that you have misunderstood God because of Paul's refusing to name the deceived woman? Is it possible that Paul's respect for the anonymity of the deceived has been used to attribute sin to godly women when the passage is about helping a deceived teacher learn the truth and follow the correct pathway to God? Is it possible that Satan hates women because God prophesied that his destruction would come as the result of the Messiah coming through the seed of the woman? After all God said that he himself would initiate enmity between the woman and the serpent. Is it possible that Satan's plan is to stop the preaching of the gospel with the 60% of the church which are female? Should we stand with Satan and limit women's ability to use their gifts for the glory of God? Is this the way of the Master or is it the way of the adversary of God?

Edited June 29, 2007 by inhistime

[Guest Biblicist]

Actually you are not quite right but I appreciate the effort. God gave them both the name Adam. Adam was how we would say they were both human, both Adam. And in the marriage union, they were one flesh. But never were they ever called one person and never were they ever called "the man". In fact it is just the opposite. Genesis 3:8 says that "they" are "the man and his wife". The man is Adam the husband and does not include Eve. Look up every reference to "the man" and you will see that it is singular. When God talks about both of them, it is always plural and never singular. When you understand the Hebrew grammar, you will see something fascinating. Have a look at Genesis 3:22-24

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Notice here that Adam, the man singular, was the one who was driven out of the garden. The grammar is singular masculine and God specifies that the "him" that he is driving out is the one who was taken from the ground. This does not include Eve. Eve was not taken from the ground, she was made from the side of the man. Why was only the man kicked out? Because only the man had sinned by deliberate action. The woman had sinned by deception and after the deception and the serpent were exposed she would have obeyed God's prohibition to not eat of the tree of life. It was the man whom God said might once again deliberately disobey the prohibition. He was the one who had sinned willfully. He was kicked out so that he would not sin against God by living forever in his sinful state by eating of the tree of life.

Now notice one other thing. Eve did leave the garden with Adam, but she was not kicked out. Why did she leave? God has already told us. He said that she would desire the man and he said that the man would take rulership over her. She left because he loyalties were to the man instead of putting God first and the man took his dominion over her and made sure that she had to leave with him.

I'm sorry, I think you are getting the word man ~

[inhistime]

Actually you are not quite right but I appreciate the effort. God gave them both the name Adam. Adam was how we would say they were both human, both Adam. And in the marriage union, they were one flesh. But never were they ever called one person and never were they ever called "the man". In fact it is just the opposite. Genesis 3:8 says that "they" are "the man and his wife". The man is Adam the husband and does not include Eve. Look up every reference to "the man" and you will see that it is singular. When God talks about both of them, it is always plural and never singular. When you understand the Hebrew grammar, you will see something fascinating. Have a look at Genesis 3:22-24

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Notice here that Adam, the man singular, was the one who was driven out of the garden. The grammar is singular masculine and God specifies that the "him" that he is driving out is the one who was taken from the ground. This does not include Eve. Eve was not taken from the ground, she was made from the side of the man. Why was only the man kicked out? Because only the man had sinned by deliberate action. The woman had sinned by deception and after the deception and the serpent were exposed she would have obeyed God's prohibition to not eat of the tree of life. It was the man whom God said might once again deliberately disobey the prohibition. He was the one who had sinned willfully. He was kicked out so that he would not sin against God by living forever in his sinful state by eating of the tree of life.

Now notice one other thing. Eve did leave the garden with Adam, but she was not kicked out. Why did she leave? God has already told us. He said that she would desire the man and he said that the man would take rulership over her. She left because he loyalties were to the man instead of putting God first and the man took his dominion over her and made sure that she had to leave with him.

I'm sorry, I think you are getting the word man ~

[methinkshe]

Let's look again at Genesis 3:22-24

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Do you see how the definite article is used with the Hebrew word Adam? Do you see the singular masculine terms used? Do you know why? It is because the definite article used with man is always singular. This is Adam, the man, being kicked out of the garden. Why is he alone being kicked out? Because God says something must be done or he will violate God's prohibition again. The net bible says:

The construction is elliptical; something must be done lest the man stretch forth his hand. The translation interprets the point intended.

The translation is correct. "The" singular man was kicked out of the garden so that he would not once again violate God's command. God's word is God-breathed and every single word and every piece of grammar is there for a purpose. We must come to scripture to find out what it says not what we might want it to say. We may want God to have kicked out both Adam and his wife, so that he treated the deceived one and the rebellious one the same, but that is not what scripture says. Yes, they both left but only the man was kicked out not as a punishment but to stop him from rebelling once again against God's rules and living forever in his sinful state by again eating of what has now been forbidden to him.

If the interpretation you offer above is a correct one, based as it is on the definite article preceding "man", then how do you harmonise Gen 2:23 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil," which according to your rules must mean that only Adam (the man) had his eyes opened to know good and evil, with Gen 2:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked," which clearly includes Eve in this newly acquired knowledge?

Ruth