1 Timothy 2:15

[methinkshe]

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.

If sin entered the world through Adam - i.e. when Adam ate the fruit, it was because he violated God's commandment - i.e. the law; therefore sin was imputable. When Eve added to God's words there was no commandment (law) against it, nor did she as yet have any knowledge of good and evil as she had not yet eaten the fruit, therefore sin could not be imputed to her.

Ruth

[firehill]

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

Since the bible doesn't contradict itself and since both of them had their eyes opened after eating in 2:7 therefore in 3:23 God is not making a statement that the woman's eyes were not opened as if he were contraditicting what the bible had already said just because He is saying therein 3:23 that the man's were. The point is then that there is no contradiction.

[OopsMartin]

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

The way I look at it is that "the man" means "the human". God did not call the male human by a given name and God called both of them adham which means human. So when God says "the human" God meant it inclusively (including the woman).

[Neopatriarch]

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:

Your terminology on false teachers, deceivers, those who are deceived, deceived false teachers, and etc. isn't very consistent so it's hard to be clear on what you are trying to say.

It seems that the critical distinction you are trying to make is between false teachers who are clueless, ignorant, and deceived versus false teachers who know better and are outright liars.

But Paul doesn't make this kind of distinction. See 1 Timothy 6 where Paul says:

Teach and urge these things. 3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine (heterodidaskaleo) and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.

Take the class of people who teach a different doctrine (heterodidaskaleo) . . . these people understand nothing. There is no mention of a false teacher who knowingly deceives people and this possibility is excluded by the fact that those who are teaching false doctrine, according to Paul, understand nothing. These people are all ignorant.

The false teachers in 1 Timothy 1:3-7 are also ignorant:

In 1 Timothy 1:6 Paul says, "Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

So, attempting to create a subcategory of false teachers who knowingly lie to people from the category of false teachers who ignorantly teach people seems impossible. The teachers are either ignorant or they are not. Context tells us it is the former.

Paul confesses that he taught ignorantly too before he was saved:

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

I haven't found any place in 1 Timothy 1 where Paul distinguishes a category of "deceived false teachers."

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.

This is the verse you are referring to:

18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

"This charge" (v. 18) refers us back to verse 3 where Paul urges Timothy "that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine." The connection shows us that the false teachers in verse 20 belong in the same category as those "certain persons" Paul mentions in verse 3. Hymenaeus and Alexander are not in a different category of false teachers. They are two of the "certain persons" who were teaching "without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." (v. 7)

I'm not sure why you call them deceivers, but all false teachers are deceivers by the very definition of the word. When you say "deceiver" I think you really mean "liar". Is that correct? A deceiver is someone who leads you to believe something that is not true.

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.

All false teachers are deceivers. You are saying she is not a liar, right?

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.

Paul doesn't name the false teachers in 1 Timothy 1:3 & 6 because he names them in verses 19 & 20.

The false teachers in 3 & 6 have rejected the faith as well. Contrast verses 8-11 with verses 12-17 where Paul says that we are saved by God's mercy and grace. We are not saved by observing myths or the law. Whatever the false teachers were teaching is not clear, but it does seem that it was not in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which Paul has been entrusted (v. 11). Paul's major concern here is the gospel of Christ. In verses 12-17 he lets us know that Christ Jesus came to save sinners.

-Neopatriarch

PS I might have a page 2 coming.

[Rocko]

I think that what Paul is trying to get across here is that in God's eyes, there is much value for the woman to build her home by having and raising children. Not that this is her only role. In fact, Paul encourages those who can to stay single (1 Cor. 7). But Paul was one to address the family and the roles of the fathers, mothers and children in that context. And God is pleased when the family works in such a harmonious way. So yes, that is part of the righteous woman's role that pleases God - but not her only role.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Rocko

[methinkshe]

To be honest, Inhistime, I believe that you are trying to justify your position as a woman preacher in the church. Fair enough if God has called you to preach to men; that is not inconsistent with His actions, as when he called Deborah to be a Judge. However, I do believe that there is a perfect pattern of authority, a general principle of order, that God has revealed to the church, the bride, that is only fully appreciated through understanding the relationship of Jesus (male) to His bride (female) the church. That is not to say that deviating form God's perfect pattern is sin, but it is to say that if we so deviate then we are likely to fall short of the perfection and beauty that is available in Him. Up to you, Inhistime. You can continue until judgment day to attempt to justify your usurpation of husbandly authority, but in the end you wil not answer to me, only to God.

Ruth

[firehill]

But maybe you're right. If I'm allowed to make negative claims without supporting them, then how about this:

Nowhere does the bible teach egalitarianism.

I have searched the bible from cover to cover and found no such teaching. Prove me wrong! I think that since this claim has the greater balance of truth by default. You're in trouble.

1 Corinthians 7:4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Equal authority is egalitarianism.

Now where does the bible say that the husband has unilateral authority over the wife?

How come this hasn't been answered yet? Maybe methinkshe can answer it in light of her last post and especialy these comments:

However, I do believe that there is a perfect pattern of authority, a general principle of order, that God has revealed to the church, the bride, that is only fully appreciated through understanding the relationship of Jesus (male) to His bride (female) the church...You can continue until judgment day to attempt to justify your usurpation of husbandly authority,...

If a ' perfect pattern of authority or a general principle of order', 'husbandly authority' have been revealed to the church then it must be revealed in the bible. Where?

[Neopatriarch]

But maybe you're right. If I'm allowed to make negative claims without supporting them, then how about this:

Nowhere does the bible teach egalitarianism.

I have searched the bible from cover to cover and found no such teaching. Prove me wrong! I think that since this claim has the greater balance of truth by default. You're in trouble.

1 Corinthians 7:4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Equal authority is egalitarianism.

Now where does the bible say that the husband has unilateral authority over the wife?

How come this hasn't been answered yet? Maybe methinkshe can answer it in light of her last post?

Because it will divert the discussion from 1 Timothy 2:15.

[firehill]

But maybe you're right. If I'm allowed to make negative claims without supporting them, then how about this:

Nowhere does the bible teach egalitarianism.

I have searched the bible from cover to cover and found no such teaching. Prove me wrong! I think that since this claim has the greater balance of truth by default. You're in trouble.

1 Corinthians 7:4:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Equal authority is egalitarianism.

Now where does the bible say that the husband has unilateral authority over the wife?

How come this hasn't been answered yet? Maybe methinkshe can answer it in light of her last post?

Because it will divert the discussion from 1 Timothy 2:15.

Fair enough. We do agree then that 1 Tim 2:15 and the passage it occurs in and the whole of it's context that we've been discussing doesn't speak at all of husbandly authority?

Does any, of the whole context, that has been under discussion, speak at all of male or man's unilateral authority then? If you believe it does, then show me where? After all you could have cited the, 1 Tim 2, passage including any of its whole context, IN ANSWER to inhistime's question, especialy since that is what we have been discussing as the topic.

If nothing of what we've been discusing in 1 Tim 2 speaks of male (or man's, or husband's) unilateral authority over the female (or woman, or wife) then why on earth is this passage ever cited to begin with to support man/male authority by gender hierarchalists and why is it even used by the complementarian side as (the?) most important passage of scripture to support male (or man) authority when it doesn't speak of it? If it does then how come you didn't just SIMPLY answer, inhistime, with the 1 Tim 2 passage?

I mean, if man has unilateral authority over woman after all in the church then why wouldn't he as a husband have unilateral authority over her as a wife in the home and vise versa since such would be simply gender or man-woman relations.

You could have even cited a Genesis passage on creation or the fall since we've been discussing those things too in great detail!

[inhistime]

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

If the bible said that only the man had become like God in knowing good and evil, then we would have to accept that, but the bible doesn't say that. The word "only" isn't there. We know from the account that Eve also had her eyes opened. Yet Adam was the one in rebellion who sinned with knowledge. He was the one who had to be kept from having access to the tree of life.

So here is the way we can approach scripture. If God acknowledges that one person had their eyes opened, we can search to see if there is evidence anywhere else that the other person also had their eyes opened. Since we were already told that both of their eyes were opened, we can know that in this passage God is emphasizing Adam for a reason.

Now let's apply this to the fact that the man was kicked out of the garden. Is there anywhere else that scripture says that Eve was kicked out? No there isn't. If Eve was never said to be kicked out and God only mentions the man being kicked out, then we can know that only the man was kicked out. Scripture interprets scripture. We can't just add in details that are not there in the text.