1 Timothy 2:15

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Of course Eve said "God said", God was the one who gave the command. It would have been sinful for her to say, "Adam said." Adam did not make the commandment.

How would it have been sinful for Eve to say "Adam told me that we are not to eat from that fruit of that tree"? Eve then would have identified that Adam had been the messenger from God to her concerning the commandment. Yet if we believe scripture instead of conjecture, we will know who told Eve because Eve not only quoted God directly, but she gave further information that is never quoted by God to Adam. This gives us a wonderful backing to believe scripture that the truth is being spoken because "God has said". God added a warning to the one who was the most curious and who was tempted to touch.

I still don't understand how Eve's words "God said...." nullify the possibility that Adam relayed the commandment TO her.

It just seems like you're putting too much emphasis on semantics.

For instance, at work, if a co-worker tells me that the boss gave a specific order, then someone on a job site askes me to do something contradicting that order, most of the time, I'm not going to be saying "Well, my co-worker told me that my boss said......"

I will be saying "Well, my boss said...." because even if I didn't hear it straight from his lips, I'm assuming that my co-worker is giving me the right information.

I don't see why it's not possible that Adam told her God's commandment.

[firehill]

Of course Eve said "God said", God was the one who gave the command. It would have been sinful for her to say, "Adam said." Adam did not make the commandment.

How would it have been sinful for Eve to say "Adam told me that we are not to eat from that fruit of that tree"? Eve then would have identified that Adam had been the messenger from God to her concerning the commandment. Yet if we believe scripture instead of conjecture, we will know who told Eve because Eve not only quoted God directly, but she gave further information that is never quoted by God to Adam. This gives us a wonderful backing to believe scripture that the truth is being spoken because "God has said". God added a warning to the one who was the most curious and who was tempted to touch.

I still don't understand how Eve's words "God said...." nullify the possibility that Adam relayed the commandment TO her.

It just seems like you're putting too much emphasis on semantics.

For instance, at work, if a co-worker tells me that the boss gave a specific order, then someone on a job site askes me to do something contradicting that order, most of the time, I'm not going to be saying "Well, my co-worker told me that my boss said......"

I will be saying "Well, my boss said...." because even if I didn't hear it straight from his lips, I'm assuming that my co-worker is giving me the right information.

I don't see why it's not possible that Adam told her God's commandment.

I don't think that the bible is so much as even steered towards semantics. Do you? You'd be meaning 'Well, my boss said' by 'Well, my co-worker (husband in Eve's case) told me that my boss (God is Eve's case not her husband!) said...while the bible on the other hand is pretty direct and to the point as in 'God did say'.

If it says that she said 'God said' that's good enough for me! I'll believe what the bible says over some fabricated bible written in a field of semantics any day. We should be able to trust that the bible means what it says, yes? Adam didn't correct her in Gen 3 did he? Neither did God ever, nor Paul or even the entire bible which would have been her SIN (first) rather than eating of the tree (only) which closes the door on the perceived possiblity that Adam told Eve since changing God's word, adding to it or claiming something that God said which He didn't is a serious offense. It's tradition that has changed God's word not Eve.

[inhistime]

One thing I have noticed. Whenever somebody does not want to apply the scriptures to their own lives they always say that they apply to some "deceived" person.

These scriptures nowhere even speak of anybody being a "deceiver". These scriptures are speaking of Adam, Eve, and roles of woman because of what happened in Genesis.

I think you should re-read my comments. I didn't say that the woman was a "deceiver". I said that she was one of the "deceived". Paul did mention several of the "deceivers" in chapter 1. He called them by name. One of them was teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. Paul turned him over to Satan to teach him not to blaspheme. That is a deceiver. The passage in 1 Timothy 2 is not talking about "women's roles" but "a woman" that is to be stopped from teaching.

As different scriptures are read and put together concerning men, women, husbands, and wives we can see what requirements God has for them in the church and in marriage.

The passage that we have been talking about in 1 Timothy 2 must be interpreted within its complete context. Paul surrounds his prohibition with a command for the false teachers to be stopped from teaching false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-7) and a comparison of "a woman" that he has stopped from teaching with the deceived Eve. Deception and false teachers is the context. If you can exegete the passage starting with chapter 1 and continuing into chapter 2 to include the prohibition to stop godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, I would ask that you do so. I have given this challenge to many Christian men who have believed that Paul is prohibiting all Christian women and not one yet has even tried to exegete the passage in context. Go ahead and try and see if you can. If not, I will just stick with what Paul said. Paul makes it clear that the context is deception, false teachers, and false teaching.

What Paul was speaking of starts in verse 11 and is all addressed to women.

The problem you have is that Paul could have easily said "women" if he had meant "women". After all in verses 9 & 10 Paul is talking about women and if he wanted to say "women" in verse 11-12 he would have just carried on with the plural. But Paul makes an abrupt change in verse 11. Now he starts to talk about a woman singular. There is no reason for him to change his grammar unless he is now talking about one woman. Then in verse 15 he says "she" and "they". If he was carrying on talking about "women" he should have said "they" and "they". But he doesn't. The grammar is inspired and we need to pay attention. Paul said "she" when he was talking about a single woman and "they" when he is talking about two or more people.

It is also addressed in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 -

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

These are God's commandments, not my own.

This is not God's command. All you need to do is look to "the law" that is quoted. There is no such law at all in the Old Testament. No woman was ever commanded to be silent in the congregation and the experts have yet to find this law in the Old Testament. It can be found in the Talmud as it is part of the oral law of the Jews. The command for women to be silent here is a quote from the Corinthians as Paul has quoted comments and questions from their letter throughout a good part of 1 Corinthians. What you didn't quote is most important. Right after the quote from the Corinthians, Paul refutes the quote in verse 36. Paul never stopped women from speaking in church and he never said that they couldn't learn in church. In fact these two verses contradict 1 Timothy 2:11 where Paul instructs the woman to learn in church. Yet the "law" quoted in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 says that if a woman wants to learn, she is to learn where? At home not in church. Paul refutes the command for women to be silent and not to learn in church by saying "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" In other words does God's word come only to men so that only men can speak in church and did God's word come to you men only so that women are not allowed to learn? Paul says that's nonsense. Women can speak and women can learn. Paul had just instructed the Corinthians in chapter 14 verse 31

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

If he had just told them that they can all prophesy, how could he then turn around and silence the women? No Paul wasn't contradicting himself at all. He was contradicting that oral law of the Jews which silenced and stifled women because they believed that God only spoke through men and that God only wanted men to learn. Why teach the women when they weren't allowed to teach anyone anyway? That was their attitude and Paul blasted them on that prejudiced attitude.

In the church the women are to remain silent and not to usurp the authority given to man.

God has given no spiritual authority to man that he hasn't also given equal spiritual authority to women. Where does God give only men authority? In the garden God gave both Adam and Eve equal authority. They were both to rule God's creation. The tradition that God has given to males a superior spiritual authority to understand his word and to be the only ones to give his word to the entire congregation is a tradition that follows the oral law of the Jews, but it isn't found in scripture.

[Guest Biblicist]

Of course Eve said "God said", God was the one who gave the command. It would have been sinful for her to say, "Adam said." Adam did not make the commandment.

How would it have been sinful for Eve to say "Adam told me that we are not to eat from that fruit of that tree"? Eve then would have identified that Adam had been the messenger from God to her concerning the commandment. Yet if we believe scripture instead of conjecture, we will know who told Eve because Eve not only quoted God directly, but she gave further information that is never quoted by God to Adam. This gives us a wonderful backing to believe scripture that the truth is being spoken because "God has said". God added a warning to the one who was the most curious and who was tempted to touch.

I still don't understand how Eve's words "God said...." nullify the possibility that Adam relayed the commandment TO her.

It just seems like you're putting too much emphasis on semantics.

For instance, at work, if a co-worker tells me that the boss gave a specific order, then someone on a job site askes me to do something contradicting that order, most of the time, I'm not going to be saying "Well, my co-worker told me that my boss said......"

I will be saying "Well, my boss said...." because even if I didn't hear it straight from his lips, I'm assuming that my co-worker is giving me the right information.

I don't see why it's not possible that Adam told her God's commandment.

Well put.

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Of course Eve said "God said", God was the one who gave the command. It would have been sinful for her to say, "Adam said." Adam did not make the commandment.

How would it have been sinful for Eve to say "Adam told me that we are not to eat from that fruit of that tree"? Eve then would have identified that Adam had been the messenger from God to her concerning the commandment. Yet if we believe scripture instead of conjecture, we will know who told Eve because Eve not only quoted God directly, but she gave further information that is never quoted by God to Adam. This gives us a wonderful backing to believe scripture that the truth is being spoken because "God has said". God added a warning to the one who was the most curious and who was tempted to touch.

I still don't understand how Eve's words "God said...." nullify the possibility that Adam relayed the commandment TO her.

It just seems like you're putting too much emphasis on semantics.

For instance, at work, if a co-worker tells me that the boss gave a specific order, then someone on a job site askes me to do something contradicting that order, most of the time, I'm not going to be saying "Well, my co-worker told me that my boss said......"

I will be saying "Well, my boss said...." because even if I didn't hear it straight from his lips, I'm assuming that my co-worker is giving me the right information.

I don't see why it's not possible that Adam told her God's commandment.

I don't think that the bible is so much as even steered towards semantics. Do you? You'd be meaning 'Well, my boss said' by 'Well, my co-worker (husband in Eve's case) told me that my boss (God is Eve's case not her husband!) said...while the bible on the other hand is pretty direct and to the point as in 'God did say'.

If it says that she said 'God said' that's good enough for me! I'll believe what the bible says over some fabricated bible written in a field of semantics any day. We should be able to trust that the bible means what it says, yes?

Yes, but the argument to which I was responding was where Eve got her information....directly from God, or directly from Adam? That's why I brought up that scenario. Yes, the Bible IS direct on what God said to Adam, but not on what God said to Eve....or even if God directly told Eve.

I guess the crux of my point is this.....We all know what God told Adam DIRECTLY....do not touch the fruit. We have no direct Biblical account re: where Eve got her information. We only have the account of what she told the serpent....which, since we KNOW she was not lying, was accurate. If she had been lying, surely God would have called her on it.

Also, if she had received the information from Adam, then either God told Adam to command her differently, or Adam added on this information, which would have put him in direct violation of God's commandment not to add to God's word.

Now, if Adam and Eve were considered equals in the Garden, then why would God have commanded them each differently...or had added on another subset of the commandment for Eve's sake?

[DarkNebulaWelder]

An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link:

Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger.

-Neopatriach

The article made clear that the 1 Tim 2 passage is a stumper for theologians and it in so many words said that it comes down to women being kept safe from satan by adhering to their God given role of a domestic life (getting married and having children). Is that what would have protected Eve from being deceived that is, since she was already with Adam (her domestic affair that did not help her while the serpent was attacking) did she need to have children in order for her to not have been deceived. I mean if this is what Paul was trying to get across then he could have very well said so since he did after all reference Adam and the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. What a stumper.

Okay, I'm trying to figure out where on Earth I got the idea that Eve was alone with the serpent.

This isn't the first time I've studied this, so it did come from SOME reputable source.

This information really turns my theological understanding of this passage topsy-turvy.

[Guest Biblicist]

Yes, but the argument to which I was responding was where Eve got her information....directly from God, or directly from Adam? That's why I brought up that scenario. Yes, the Bible IS direct on what God said to Adam, but not on what God said to Eve....or even if God directly told Eve.

I guess the crux of my point is this.....We all know what God told Adam DIRECTLY....do not touch the fruit. We have no direct Biblical account re: where Eve got her information. We only have the account of what she told the serpent....which, since we KNOW she was not lying, was accurate. If she had been lying, surely God would have called her on it.

Also, if she had received the information from Adam, then either God told Adam to command her differently, or Adam added on this information, which would have put him in direct violation of God's commandment not to add to God's word.

Now, if Adam and Eve were considered equals in the Garden, then why would God have commanded them each differently...or had added on another subset of the commandment for Eve's sake?

An ineresting point. I love the way you do your best to properly exegete the Word of God.

Here is more information on the subject. Bible.org <---link

[firehill]

Of course Eve said "God said", God was the one who gave the command. It would have been sinful for her to say, "Adam said." Adam did not make the commandment.

How would it have been sinful for Eve to say "Adam told me that we are not to eat from that fruit of that tree"? Eve then would have identified that Adam had been the messenger from God to her concerning the commandment. Yet if we believe scripture instead of conjecture, we will know who told Eve because Eve not only quoted God directly, but she gave further information that is never quoted by God to Adam. This gives us a wonderful backing to believe scripture that the truth is being spoken because "God has said". God added a warning to the one who was the most curious and who was tempted to touch.

I still don't understand how Eve's words "God said...." nullify the possibility that Adam relayed the commandment TO her.

It just seems like you're putting too much emphasis on semantics.

For instance, at work, if a co-worker tells me that the boss gave a specific order, then someone on a job site askes me to do something contradicting that order, most of the time, I'm not going to be saying "Well, my co-worker told me that my boss said......"

I will be saying "Well, my boss said...." because even if I didn't hear it straight from his lips, I'm assuming that my co-worker is giving me the right information.

I don't see why it's not possible that Adam told her God's commandment.

I don't think that the bible is so much as even steered towards semantics. Do you? You'd be meaning 'Well, my boss said' by 'Well, my co-worker (husband in Eve's case) told me that my boss (God is Eve's case not her husband!) said...while the bible on the other hand is pretty direct and to the point as in 'God did say'.

If it says that she said 'God said' that's good enough for me! I'll believe what the bible says over some fabricated bible written in a field of semantics any day. We should be able to trust that the bible means what it says, yes?

Yes, but the argument to which I was responding was where Eve got her information....directly from God, or directly from Adam? That's why I brought up that scenario. Yes, the Bible IS direct on what God said to Adam, but not on what God said to Eve....or even if God directly told Eve.

I guess the crux of my point is this.....We all know what God told Adam DIRECTLY....do not touch the fruit. We have no direct Biblical account re: where Eve got her information. We only have the account of what she told the serpent....which, since we KNOW she was not lying, was accurate. If she had been lying, surely God would have called her on it.

Also, if she had received the information from Adam, then either God told Adam to command her differently, or Adam added on this information, which would have put him in direct violation of God's commandment not to add to God's word.

Now, if Adam and Eve were considered equals in the Garden, then why would God have commanded them each differently...or had added on another subset of the commandment for Eve's sake?

Where did Eve get her information from? If Paul tells us that 'God said' would you believe HIM? If God told you something would you not say 'God said'? The bible is direct on what God said to Eve because she said 'God said'. It can't be anymore clearer or simple. We all know what God told Adam because it is recorded and we also know what God told Eve because that is recorded too.

We agree that she was not lying. So was Adam confused then? Did Adam rely the information incorrectly? God didn't call him on it did he? Therefore, no that can't be the case either. Certainly God would have called Adam on relaying a false command had he done so. If God didn't say such and such and yet Adam told Eve such and such then why is there no correction for this throughout the entire bible?

Why would God have told Adam to tell Eve of the command, but Differently? Why would God have needed to when they walked with God in the garden? Even Jesus when giving out his commands didn't confine them to only the 12 apostles but rather he gave his commands to all his followers and disciples so why wouldn't God do the same for his first creation in his image?

When the serpent approached, Eve, asking 'did God really say that you...', he asked in the plural 'you' (the Hebrew is plural) as in 'you both'. And Eve responded in the plural 'you'. Not even the serpent questioned a command given only to Adam because it was given to both of them by God.

The serpent could have even questioned Eve on NOT TOUCHING THE FRUIT had Adam relayed the information incorrectly which beyound a doubt would have REALLY caused for CONFUSION had Eve not the ability to understand God's simple command and so she wasn't confused, neither did she lie but rather as she told the serpent to whom she had no reason to lie, 'God said...'

[firehill]

An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link:

Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger.

-Neopatriach

The article made clear that the 1 Tim 2 passage is a stumper for theologians and it in so many words said that it comes down to women being kept safe from satan by adhering to their God given role of a domestic life (getting married and having children). Is that what would have protected Eve from being deceived that is, since she was already with Adam (her domestic affair that did not help her while the serpent was attacking) did she need to have children in order for her to not have been deceived. I mean if this is what Paul was trying to get across then he could have very well said so since he did after all reference Adam and the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. What a stumper.

Okay, I'm trying to figure out where on Earth I got the idea that Eve was alone with the serpent.

This isn't the first time I've studied this, so it did come from SOME reputable source.

This information really turns my theological understanding of this passage topsy-turvy.

It wasn't common practice for the pulpit to mention that important piece of information since tradition ruled the day. But it is becoming common knowledge.

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

Are you saying Eve was saved?

I am saying that Eve received mercy from God in that she did not sin in rebellion with a "high hand" but fell into sin through deception. I believe that Eve received mercy. After all the one who rebelled and sinned with knowledge was the one kicked out of the garden. The one who sin because of deception was not kicked out by God. She left the garden because God said that she would desire the man and obviously he started his sinful rule over her by taking her with him, but she was never kicked out by God.

Comparison or not, on your understanding the verse says "Yet she will be saved through the Childbirth." So, either Paul is singling out the wife who is a false teacher for salvation through the Messiah or he is claiming that this wife will be saved the same way everyone else is saved and making a moot point.

No, read what I said again. Although everyone is saved through the Messiah, Paul makes a special emphasis on sound teaching and that the deceived woman must love the truth and have self control to stay away from false teaching. This is not a moot point as this is applicable in a special way for people who have held onto false doctrine.

She must do some things to be saved? Works salvation?

It is not a works salvation but there are things that she must do to stay away from false doctrine. False doctrine takes people away from Christ. Don't you know that? One must turn away from that doctrine. Paul is the one who said it. He certainly didn't mean that a woman must have children to be saved. Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that she will be saved if.... Now either we accept what the Holy Spirit has said that salvation is held by deceived people or we can call him a liar. I choose to believe Paul. (Speaking as if this was Paul's time) this deceived woman will most certainly be saved if she holds fast to the truth, love for God, and self-control to stay away from the false deceptive gospel of man.

15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing