1 Timothy 2:15

[inhistime]

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).

You are right in that "the man" can mean "the human". It also can mean "the man" as in male. I am not aware of any references to "the man" as to a female. "Ishshah" is the word that is used for female and it means woman or wife. However whenever "the man" is referenced, it is always followed by "he" not "they". "The" man is always singular. When the definite article is missing then "man" can mean plural humans. Another way to show that there are two human beings referenced is when God calls them man and woman. This is also plural because two are referred to. However there is never a place in scripture where "the man" is ever plural and it cannot refer to two unless another is added as "the wife" or "the woman" etc. Does this make it understandable?

[inhistime]

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).

Except this is grammatically impossible. Also Paul tells us that sin came through one man. It is a primary number and cannot mean more than one. While Eve "fell" into sin first, the man by his rebellion and willful sinning was charged with bringing sin into the world. That is why the virgin birth is so very important. If Eve had brought sin into the world also, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from her. If that had happened he could not have been the perfect lamb that could pay for our sin.

[firehill]

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).

You are right in that "the man" can mean "the human". It also can mean "the man" as in male. I am not aware of any references to "the man" as to a female. "Ishshah" is the word that is used for female and it means woman or wife. However whenever "the man" is referenced, it is always followed by "he" not "they". "The" man is always singular. When the definite article is missing then "man" can mean plural humans. Another way to show that there are two human beings referenced is when God calls them man and woman. This is also plural because two are referred to. However there is never a place in scripture where "the man" is ever plural and it cannot refer to two unless another is added as "the wife" or "the woman" etc. Does this make it understandable?

When the definite article is missing then "man" can mean plural humans.

As in Genesis 1:26 & 27?

26 Then God said, "Let us make man (no article in the Hebrew) in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man (again no article in the Hebrew) in his own image,

in the image of God he created him (referencing adam without the article 'the');

male and female he created them.

Therefore when God created 'the adam' out of the ground in Gen 2 the word carried the connotation 'male' but not the nuance of 'male'? Therefore the scripture meant by the words 'the adam' that God created 'the human' but by implication, 'a male' out of the ground?

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

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.

You seem to have a handle on what I mean by the difference between the deceivers and the deceived. In the passage above Paul explains the deceived and the false doctrine that they are holding on to.

Paul says that the doctrine he is talking about is about godliness. That is sanctification. Let's compare this to the false doctrine that Bob Larson espouses. He teaches that one becomes godly by going back into the past to find out the sins of your fathers and then binding the demons that pass on these sinful things down to you. This is one of the same kind of things that Paul is refuting. One does not experience godliness in this way. You can argue about the sin of your fathers until kingdom come but the work of sanctification comes from the Holy Spirit through a willing vessel who practices godly living. It has absolutely nothing to do with your ancestors. Now while Bob Larson's doctrine is not directly related to the gospel since it is not talking about how a person gets saved or keep salvation, it brings people into bondage by thinking that there are rituals that they can practice that will rid them of their "demons" and their bad habits. These teaching can puff one up with conceit that they are "in the know" about these special teachings about demons but there is no understanding of godly principles.

Paul goes on to list the things that these false deceived teachers practice and what makes their false doctrines to insidious. These false doctrines promote controversial questions, disputes about words, envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions and constant friction. Then Paul says that godliness is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. This false doctrine is all about obtaining godliness or sanctification. It is not about a false gospel. For the deceived teachers in Ephesus Paul does not accuse them of teaching a false gospel, he does not condemn them as heretics, he does not say that they are deceivers. This is very important for Paul had very severe words about those who are deliberate deceivers. Paul talks about the deceivers in chapter 4 of 1 Timothy.

This group is marked by lies. Paul says it is the hypocrisy of liars. They have a seared conscience. Do you see the difference? The deceived have the fruit of envy, strife, friction, etc in their lives. The deceivers are liars. They are the heretics. Peter concurs. In 2 Peter 2:1-3 Peter says:

...there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves...and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Here the deceivers again are noted by their fruit. They bring destructive heresies and they lie. Hymenaeus was one of these liars, deceivers and heretic.

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.

Look at the verses above that I quoted. There are deceivers who do know the truth and they lie about the truth. They are not ignorant, they are liars. There is a BIG difference between one who is deceived and therefore believing and teaching false doctrine and one who is a deliberate liar. Eve was one who was deceived, she was not a deceiver.

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.

That is right. These false teachers were the deceived. They were not deliberate liars.

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.

I am amazed that you can say this. Did you not read the entire book of 1 Timothy. How could you have missed chapter four?

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

Read it again. Paul says that these teachers are ignorant not knowing what they are teaching. He then compares himself to them by saying that he too acted ignorantly and in unbelief. His ignorance he says allowed him to experience God's mercy. He does not afford the same to the deceivers. These he delivers to Satan for the destruction of the body. The deceived he delivers to the church to train them in the truth.

I can tell that you have not had much experience with the cults. I have ministered since 1988 to those caught in the cults especially Jehovah's Witnesses. I have seen the difference between those who are genuinely deceived and those who are deceivers. The deceivers you cannot reach at all. A few years ago a former Christian Pastor who became a Universalist contacted me. We had quite a few go-arounds on doctrine and I found out that he was a liar and a deceiver. Do you want to know how I know? Because I checked up on him. He was very scholarly sounding and he quoted a lot of lexicons to prove that these lexicons proved the universalist faith to be true. However I believe strongly in testing everything and holding fast to that which is good. I read the lexicons that he was using and his quotes from them were worded backwards to make them say something that was opposite of what the quote said. I was astounded that he could lie that. I wondered if I was the only one who read his quotes from the sources. I called him on his misquote and he responded with another quote from another source. Again I checked the source and again it was twisted to make it say the opposite of the actual quote. When I showed him what the real quote said, he got really mad and me and didn't want to communicate any longer. Do you know why? Because liars cannot stand the truth. Liars cannot be taught. Liars must be exposed for who they are and what they are trying to do.

I encouraged my friends who were having this former "Pastor" in their home leading a bible study on hell (or the non-existence of hell) to inform their Pastor about the wolf in the sheepfold. The real Pastor of the church was unaware that his flock were being indoctrinated and when he found out, he met with the Universalist man and then kicked him out of the church.

However the JW's that I have had the privilege of leading out of the Watchtower and into the Christian faith were not deliberate liars who knew the truth and who were distorting the gospel on purpose. They were genuinely led astray. I have seen many of them become born-again Christians. They were shocked when they realized that they had been lied to and deceived.

Do you see the difference now between liars (deceivers) and the deceived? If you try to disciple a deceiver you won't get anywhere.

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)

"This charge" follows in verse 18 and 19. "This charge" Paul says is to "fight the good fight keeping faith and a good conscience". The charge in verse 18 is to Timothy and it follows in the same verse. The charge in verse 3 is the charge to certain persons not to teach different doctrines. In verse 3 Timothy is the one who is to be doing the charging. In verse 18 Paul is the one who is charging Timothy. The understanding of the passage is always in the context. Read the entire verse and it is there.

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.

No, that isn't the definition. False teachers are false because they teach false doctrine. A deceiver also teaches false doctrine but he does it deliberately and with lies. A false teacher who practices lies will move into the category of deceiver, but many false teachers are not liars.

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?

There is nothing in the passage that says that she is a liar. If she was, then saying that she must learn the truth wouldn't work. Liars are not changed by teaching them the truth. They are to be expelled from the congregation.

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

Absolutely incorrect. The teaching of Hymenaeus was not myths and genealogies. Instead Hymenaeus taught that the resurrection had already happened. (2 Timothy 2:17) Paul says he had rejected the faith. In contrast the deceived teachers at the beginning of the chapter are said to have "turned aside to fruitless discussion" (verse 6). This is a far cry from rejecting the faith by teaching that the resurrection had already happened. No, I am sorry but your explanation does not hold up to the inspection of scripture.

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.

You are adding things here that are not in the text. The false teachers in verses 3 & 6 are not said to have rejected the faith. They have strayed from the faith not rejected it. Do you see that there is a difference between walking off the path because you have lost your way and someone else who rejects the path and turns their back and walks on another path? Now in context, Paul says nothing about the gospel being the issue but myths and genealogies. I have already given you a modern-day example of this kind of myth and genealogy with the example of Bob Larson.

Although there has been much back and forth between us, I hope that this has been a case of "iron sharpening iron". As Christians we can respect one another and still debate passionately the context of the scriptures.

I hope there is a part "two" from you too because I am still waiting to see how you explain from the context how Paul is stopping godly teaching in chapter two. I have never had a man who was even willing to tackle an exegesis from the context so I hope that you are "the" man.

Blessings,

Cheryl

[inhistime]

See below

Edited June 30, 2007 by inhistime

[inhistime]

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).

You are right in that "the man" can mean "the human". It also can mean "the man" as in male. I am not aware of any references to "the man" as to a female. "Ishshah" is the word that is used for female and it means woman or wife. However whenever "the man" is referenced, it is always followed by "he" not "they". "The" man is always singular. When the definite article is missing then "man" can mean plural humans. Another way to show that there are two human beings referenced is when God calls them man and woman. This is also plural because two are referred to. However there is never a place in scripture where "the man" is ever plural and it cannot refer to two unless another is added as "the wife" or "the woman" etc. Does this make it understandable?

When the definite article is missing then "man" can mean plural humans.

As in Genesis 1:26 & 27?

26 Then God said, "Let us make man (no article in the Hebrew) in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man (again no article in the Hebrew) in his own image,

in the image of God he created him (referencing adam without the article 'the');

male and female he created them.

Therefore when God created 'the adam' out of the ground in Gen 2 the word carried the connotation 'male' but not the nuance of 'male'? Therefore the scripture meant by the words 'the adam' that God created 'the human' but by implication, 'a male' out of the ground?

Yes, when "man" is without the article it can mean plural or just a single man. So in Genesis 1:26, "man" is without the article and is plural since God said "them". The next verse has both the singular and the plural.

[firehill]

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.

Correct Adam violated God's command JUST as Eve did BUT the bible is extremely clear about Eve having fell into sin through deception whereas Adam sinned knowing what he was doing which CHANGES EVERYTHING. Therefore, no, sin did not enter the world simply because Adam violated God's command (there's more to it than that, i.e, Eve was deceived and thereby fell into sin while Adam rebelled against God thereby outright sinning vs. falling into sin) since Eve also did violate the same command. One cannot leave out important biblical factors and then start building without them.

When Eve added to God's words there was no commandment (law) against it,...

First provide evidence that she added to God's word rather than assume that she did then go from there building word upon word and precept upon precept. If you cannot provide evidence that Eve added to God's word then who would actually be guilty of adding to God's word, you or her?

...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.

How could sin have been imputed to her anyway when she fell into sin through deception as EVEN, 1 Tim 2, the passage we've been discussing spells out whereas Adam sinned in rebellion which brings us back to what I previously just said: One cannot build properly without all the elements (factors) nor without providing the evidence of an assertion otherwise what would one be building (certainly not biblical doctrine) and on what foundation (certainly not on biblical teachings)?

[inhistime]

methinkshe said:

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

Ruth, where did you get the idea that I am a woman preacher in the church? I am not comfortable with public speaking at the best of times so it amazing to find myself called a woman preacher in the church. How could I be justifying a position I don't have?

In my ministry in working with the cults, I find it interesting that often the ones who cannot give a scriptural answer for their beliefs will turn to attacking the person instead of reasoning through the scriptures. They will attack one's motives even though God says that we are not to judge the heart. No one but God himself is privy to the motives and thoughts of a man's heart. I have a great amount of patience with them because I know that they have been deceived. I love them enough to give them the truth even though I may be attacked in the process.

It is interesting to me that as a Christian you are taking a place of judgment over me even though you do not know me at all. You say that I am usurping my husband's authority. What evidence do you have to make such a statement?

I think that in these discussions we need to be reminded that we are all part of the body of Christ. We are to love one another as Christ loved us. Let's not judge motives or accuse each other of sinful actions without evidence. It is our privilege to love one another and teach each other the truth from God's words using the inspired words and the inspired grammar.

Blessings,

Cheryl

Edited June 30, 2007 by inhistime

[OopsMartin]

methinkshe said:

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

Ruth, where did you get the idea that I am a woman preacher in the church? I am not comfortable with public speaking at the best of times so it amazing to find myself called a woman preacher in the church. How could I be justifying a position I don't have?

In my ministry in working with the cults, I find it interesting that often the ones who cannot give a scriptural answer for their beliefs will turn to attacking the person instead of reasoning through the scriptures. They will attack one's motives even though God says that we are not to judge the heart. No one but God himself is privy to the motives and thoughts of a man's heart. I have a great amount of patience with them because I know that they have been deceived. I love them enough to give them the truth even though I may be attacked in the process.

It is interesting to me that as a Christian you are taking a place of judgment over me even though you do not know me at all. You say that I am usurping my husband's authority. What evidence do you have to make such a statement?

I think that in these discussions we need to be reminded that we are all part of the body of Christ. We are to love one another as Christ loved us. Let's not judge motives or accuse each other of sinful actions without evidence. It is our privilege to love one another and teach each other the truth from God's words using the inspired words and the inspired grammar.

Blessings,

Cheryl

It is always interesting to see Christians take that kind of a stance, Cheryl. but it happens all the time on discussion forums. Must be what was behind the Holy Wars. Thank goodness we aren't discussing these issues in person.

On a lighter note I would love to have a woman like you for a wife only about 20 years older. If I were interested in getting married again. And I wouldn't dream of trying to control or "take authority over" her. I think it must have taken many years for me to fully grasp what being equally made in God's image really means. It certainly doesn't mean that women's domain is managing the man's castle while men are Lords of the earth doing the business of the world. It is likely that these ideas are what is behind the idea that 1 Tim. 2:15 means women are saved by taking the role of child bearer and raiser.

Men and women should use the gifts, skills, and strengths God gave each of us for the betterment of all. Anyone that wishes to hinder one person from using their skills and gifts is hurting the whole of humanity. They just don't know it. Not all women will be wives and mother; not all men will be husbands and fathers. Marriage is a beautiful covenental relationship that not every human is able to engage or maintain adequately. Above it all, we must serve the Lord. God is foremost, without whom we would have no skills to share and without whom we would have no spiritual gifts to bless others with. While it may be difficult for some to maintain married life and serve God to our fullest, we can do it.

[firehill]

...what being equally made in God's image really means. It certainly doesn't mean that women's domain is managing the man's castle while men are Lords of the earth doing the business of the world.

No? Got me laughing how you put it.