Excerpted from Troubling Her: A Biblical Defense of Women in Ministry (Purple Girl Books, 2010).

This is the fourth and final post in my series “Understanding First Timothy”. You can also read the rest of the series here.

The final verse of 1 Timothy 2 concludes Paul’s argument: 

1 Timothy 2:15
Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This third part of Paul’s argument relates to the promise of salvation through the woman’s offspring (Gen. 3:15). Paul is obviously not suggesting that women are saved through bearing children, since our salvation occurs by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8).

Paul, who advocated singleness in First Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:8), was also not suggesting that having a family and children is essential to salvation. What would such a suggestion mean for virgins, widows and those choosing to remain unmarried for the sake of Christ?

Rather, Paul is finishing his parallel to creation, reminding Timothy of the salvation in Christ that was promised and came through a woman (Gen. 3:15). He reminds Timothy that God often uses women to help achieve His purposes. This parallels some of God’s other major deliverances that prominently feature women and the birth of a child who eventually leads God’s people.

The story of Moses is full of women: the midwives that helped the Israelite women deliver children (Exod. 1:15–22), his older sister who stood guard over him (Exod. 2:4) and Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted him (Exod. 2:6–10).

Samson’s mother was visited by an angel who foretold the birth of her son (Judg. 13:2–5). When she told her husband, he prayed to God. God answered his prayer by sending the angel back to the woman (Judg. 13:9)! God dealt directly with Samson’s mother and only spoke with her husband (Samson’s father) when she brought him to where God was (Judg. 13:10–14).

Samuel, a great prophet, was born to Hannah, a woman who was one of two wives. Hannah was barren and in her sorrow vowed to give her son to God (1 Sam. 1:1–20). Through her, and the women mentioned earlier, God was able to bring deliverance to His people. Paul is reminding Timothy of this fact.

Some have suggested that verse 15 is a command for women to tend to their families instead of teaching. I think that is a misunderstanding of verse 15. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul advises Timothy that younger widows should marry, but that is a different situation than the one Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2. And as we know from leaders like Deborah, Huldah, and Priscilla, being married and ministering are not mutually exclusive.

*      *      *

We ought to pay more attention to Peter’s statement that Paul’s sayings are “hard to be understood.” This same Peter received the revelation of Christ from God (Matt. 15:16-18) and saw Christ transfigured on the mount (Matt. 17:1-8). So if he is saying the Paul’s writing can be hard to understand, we should not expect to easily interpret it. Paul was the recipient of great revelation, and his epistles are not understood by a superficial reading of the text. The Word of God does not yield its fruit easily and it is easy to misunderstand what has been written for our learning.

When Paul spoke of women in 1 Timothy 2, it was not a universal prohibition on women teaching or holding authority—it was a command designed to prevent unlearned people in the community from falling into the same situation as Eve. In ancient times, most such people in that position were women. Today, in many cultures, women have the same opportunities to learn the Word of God as men, so there is no special danger in women teaching or holding authority.

The lesson we need to glean from Paul’s teaching is that those holding authority and teaching in the Church must be taught in the Word of God—not that leadership is determined on the basis of gender.

Excerpted from Troubling Her: A Biblical Defense of Women in Ministry (Purple Girl Books, 2010).

This is the third post in my series “Understanding First Timothy”. You can also read the rest of the series here. 

What Paul Meant

So what did Paul mean by verses 13–14? We’ve already discussed that God often chooses those that are second (or later in chronological order) to rule and lead, and we see that deception by Satan is not limited to women.

The way to understand what these verses mean is by looking at them together. Paul links the order in which the man and woman were created and the woman’s deception, and this provides the key to understanding this passage. The creation account in Genesis 2 provides the answer:

Genesis 2:15–18, 21-22
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”…
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 

Consider the order of what took place: God created Adam, commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then God created woman.

To clarify: God had not created the woman when He gave the command to Adam.

This is the reason that Paul juxtaposed the order of creation and the woman’s deception in 1 Timothy 2. Because the order of creation provided an occasion for the woman to be deceived—because she wasn’t around to hear the original command.

In Hebrew, the discussion between the woman and the serpent makes it clear that the serpent was aware of God’s command, while the woman was not. First, let’s read the English version and then I’ll reference the Hebrew: 

Genesis 3:1–4
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

In Hebrew, the woman’s response to the serpent makes it obvious that she has not heard what God said. The words of her response do not resemble God’s original statement, and she adds to God’s statement. But the serpent’s response to the woman negates what God has said using exactly the same language that God used with Adam. You can see in the Hebrew that the serpent has heard what God has said while the woman has not. In disputing God’s command, the serpent repeats it precisely (and makes it plural for the man and woman), while the woman doesn’t get it right at all.

Now we come to Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy. Paul’s statements were not a universal statement against women in leadership; he was observing the similarity between the position of women in the local congregation and the position in which Eve found herself in Genesis. Much has been written about the cultural context in which Paul lived when he wrote to Timothy. But the lens through which Paul wanted Timothy to understand his congregation’s situation was Genesis, with particular reference to the relative knowledge of men and women at that time.

The similarity between Genesis and Timothy’s congregation was this: both involved women who lacked direct, substantive knowledge of God’s Word. In Timothy’s culture, women were generally not a part of public discourse, and were not informed about the Word of God in the same way that men were, at least not initially. Eve, as we know from Genesis 2, lacked direct knowledge about God’s command because she hadn’t been created.

Paul’s letter to Timothy seems to be partially in response to some women in the local congregation who had taken it upon themselves to teach without having knowledge and understanding of the Word. It is these women that Paul forbade to teach. The issue was not about them being women, rather Paul used the fact that women were involved to draw a parallel to the temptation and sin that befell Eve.

That deception was based not on her gender. It happened because she was not alive when God gave the command, resulting in her incomplete knowledge of God’s command. The Genesis account does not tell us how Eve found out about the command or who told her. But whatever happened, she was eventually deceived by the serpent. Adam, who heard the command directly from God, was not (1 Tim. 2:14).

So Paul’s message to Timothy was this: to allow unlearned women to teach would effectively place them in the same position as Eve was in—they would have had influence but not knowledge. This would make them susceptible (as Eve was) to temptation and sin. Not because they are women, but because of their lack of knowledge. In their current unlearned condition, these women would have jeopardized the well–being of the congregation by making place for Satan, the tempter.

This was not the first time Paul expressed concern that Satan be prevented from influencing the churches. In some instances, as in 1 Timothy 5, Paul reminded Timothy about the efforts of Satan to ensnare younger widows in the congregation (1 Tim. 5:9–16). In 1 Corinthians 7:5, he reminded the married couples at Corinth that Satan would seek to tempt them, and advised them to be on their guard. In 2 Corinthians 2:10–12, Paul discussed how forgiveness prevents Satan from gaining a foothold in the congregation.

Paul’s reference to the woman’s deception in 1 Timothy 2:14 also contained an implicit reference to and concern about Satan, the serpent of Genesis. Note that in Genesis, one consequence of the serpent’s actions was that God put hatred between the serpent (Satan) and the woman, and between their offspring:

Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

So while Paul is drawing a parallel between the situation of unlearned women and Eve, he is also cautioning Timothy against putting women in a situation that will allow Satan to exploit their lack of knowledge.

The end result of Paul’s teaching is that in situations or cultures where women (or men) are unlearned—that is, in the same position as Eve was in Genesis—they are not to teach. Not because of gender, but because having untaught people teach gives occasion to Satan to deceive and mislead them.

How does this impact women in ministry today? In many cultures, women are taught the Word of God and have the ability to learn. Under Paul’s argument, there is no prohibition against such women teaching, because they are not in the same position as Eve — they have had a chance to learn and understand the Word of God.

Excerpted from Troubling Her: A Biblical Defense of Women in Ministry (Purple Girl Books, 2010).

This is the second post in my series “Understanding First Timothy”. You can also read the rest of the series here.

In 1 Timothy 2:14, Paul continues his argument:

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Some Christians understand this statement to mean that women cannot lead either because they are more easily deceived, or because the first woman was deceived. This is a gross misinterpretation of the Word of God, for a few reasons.

First, it is a fairly common, and major error to suppose that Eve is a type of all women, and that Adam is a type of all men. While it is true that their sinful nature passed along to all of humanity (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12), there is nothing which indicates that sin is passed down by gender.

We read in the Bible of male and female murderers (Gen. 4:8; 1 Kgs. 18:13), liars (Acts 5:1–11), adulterers (Lev. 20:10) and every other kind of sin. The Law makes provision for men and women committing the same types of sins (Num. 5:6–7), which Christ affirmed (Mark 10:11–12).

There is also no indication that women are more easily deceived than men. The Bible provides examples of two men among Christ’s apostles who were deceived and misled by Satan—Peter and Judas.

The first of Satan’s efforts took place during a time when the Lord was describing His crucifixion to His disciples. After He finished, Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked Him, trying to tell the Lord that He would not be crucified:

Matthew 16:22–23
22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”
23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Jesus’ response to Peter is instructive. He indicates plainly that Satan was influencing Peter’s conduct (v. 23). Then, shortly before the Lord’s crucifixion, Jesus told Peter that Satan wasn’t finished with him yet:

Luke 22:31–32
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Peter denied the Lord multiple times (Matt. 26:69–75; Luke 22:55–62), a behavior Christ foretold him would be influenced by Satan. As for Judas, the Bible teaches us that Satan actually entered into him (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). Being deceived by Satan is not limited to women, since even two of Christ’s apostles, including Peter who was especially favored (Matt. 17:1–3), were misled and influenced by Satan.

The suggestion that God prevents women from leading because Eve was deceived is even more ridiculous—as if God is punishing all women because Eve sinned. If that’s the case, then men are also prevented from leading because Adam, who was not deceived by the serpent, willfully sinned against God. Both of them sinned.

Excerpted from Troubling Her: A Biblical Defense of Women in Ministry (Purple Girl Books, 2010).

This is the first post in my series “Understanding First Timothy”. You can also read the rest of the series here.

Most of the arguments against women in ministry center on a portion of First Timothy 2 that has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. In this chapter, we’ll examine the verses at the center of the controversy and discuss their implications for women in ministry. Let’s start by reading the Word:

1 Timothy 2:11–15
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The traditional argument against women in ministry interprets verses 13–15 to mean that God wants only men in positions of authority, because: men were formed first (v.13), and the first woman was deceived (v.14). Part three of the argument suggests that God wants women to focus on their families (v.15). There are some variations on this argument, but this is the essence of it.

The problem with this argument is that it completely misunderstands Paul’s point. Many Christians believe that Paul was referring to creation to show the universality of male leadership. But that isn’t what Paul was doing. He was referencing the events which took place to illustrate a parallel to the situation confronting Timothy.

The chart below illustrates the parallel between Paul’s argument and the creation accounts:

The Order of Creation

The first part of Paul’s argument has been misinterpreted to mean that the person created first is the one that God intends to have authority—or the one God regards as most important. The problem with this argument is that throughout the Old Testament, God often chose the person who was second, or even the youngest of many, to rule.

In the order of creation, animals were created first. Since human beings were created after them, does this make humans secondary to animals? Of course not. This is an obvious example of how we do not interpret the Bible to mean that first is better. Some would argue this point because human beings are made in the image of God, while animals are not.

So let’s look at Cain and Abel. When Cain and Abel brought offerings to God, God accepted Abel’s offering over Cain’s. Abel was the younger brother; Cain was the first–born (Gen. 4:1–2). Again, some would dispute this point because Cain and Abel’s offerings were accepted because of their content, not because of birth order.

What about Abraham’s sons? Abraham had two sons: Ishmael, his first–born and Isaac, who was Abraham’s second son (Gen. 17:15–21). Abraham’s primary heir was Isaac, the second–born. God chose him and his children as the ones through whom the Messiah would come (Gen. 21:12). Some may argue that Isaac was Abraham’s first son with Sarah—or the first one conceived within marriage. But they were both Abraham’s sons and God chose the second-born over the first.

Later, Isaac had twins, Esau and Jacob, with his wife Rebekah. Esau was the first–born and Jacob was born second. But God chose Jacob (the younger) and his children as His people and rejected Esau (Gen. 25:23–26). It cannot be argued that God’s choice was based on the conduct of the children, since God determined that Jacob was to be the younger and the chosen ruler before they were even born (Gen. 25:23; Rom. 9:11–13).

There are other examples of this, as well. When God wanted to preserve Israel’s heritage, He sent Joseph ahead to be ruler over Egypt (Gen. 45:4–8). But Joseph was the second–youngest son of Jacob. It was expected in their culture that the oldest should lead, so when Joseph had dreams about his brothers bowing down to him—and his parents—his brothers and even his father were angry (Gen. 37:5–11). It was unthinkable that he, almost the youngest, should rule over them. But that’s exactly what happened (Gen. 42:6; 43:26).

When the prophet Samuel was sent by God to the house of Jesse to anoint one of his sons as king over Israel, Samuel thought that he was to anoint the first–born (1 Sam. 16:6; 17:13). As it turned out, God had chosen the youngest son (1 Sam. 16:11). Again, God chose the youngest to rule over those older than him.

There are plenty of other examples that prove that God often chooses the second over the first. The Apostle Paul knew all of this. He was a student of Gamaliel, a well–respected rabbi (Acts 22:3), and an Old Testament scholar. Paul was well–versed in the Jewish Scriptures. He wasn’t making an argument about men having authority because they were chronologically first, because there are numerous examples where God chose those who were not chronologically first to lead.

So what did Paul mean? It’s tied to the next verse. I’ll explain more after we study verse 14.

In Genesis 16 and 21, we find the story of Hagar, an Egyptian woman who was Sarah’s servant and who found herself in a very difficult situation with Abraham and Sarah.

The Situation

As many of you know, Abraham and Sarah (at the time their names were Abram and Sarai) were unable to have children. In an attempt to fix this situation, Sarah gave her servant to Abraham in hopes of conceiving a child. Abraham agreed.

But after Hagar became pregnant, things unfolded differently than Sarah expected. Hagar’s pregnancy elevated her status in the household and she despised Sarah, who sought revenge.

Abraham, after taking Hagar as his wife, left her to Sarah’s abusive behavior—while Hagar was pregnant! Sarah’s abuse was so bad that Hagar tried to run away. Think about that for a moment. Sarah, renowned for her beauty, abused a pregnant woman out of anger—anger at a situation caused by Sarah’s own actions! And Abraham, who had willingly engaged in sexual relations with Hagar, abandoned her to the will of someone who wanted to hurt her, when he could have stopped it. All this while Abraham was in covenant with God.

God Finds Hagar

While Hagar was away, God came and found her, and was very interested in her situation. He did not despise her because she was a slave, nor did He reject her because she was Egyptian. Instead He sent her back to Abraham and Sarah but with promises about her son, a prophecy about his life, and a name for him from God (Gen. 16:7-13). His name was to be Ishmael, which means in Hebrew, “God is listening.”

We aren’t told about what happened when Hagar returned to Abraham and Sarah, but imagine what Abraham must have thought when he heard Ishmael’s name.

Wait, you mean God is listening? To Hagar?

In the naming of Ishmael, God put Abraham and Sarah on notice that He was aware of their actions. And if you know anything about God, when something gets His attention, He does something about it. We’ll get to that later.

Here We Go, Again

After Isaac’s birth (Genesis 21), Sarah started things up again—she wanted Hagar kicked out of the house entirely! This time God consented and Abraham sent them away with some water and bread. That’s it. Abraham, who had 318 servants in his house to help him rescue his nephew Lot (Genesis 14:14), only gave Hagar water and bread. No animals, no servant to protect them, nothing. And this was his first-born son!

But God was listening and He found Hagar and Ishmael again, reminded her of His promise to her, and helped Hagar and Ishmael to survive (Gen. 21:15-21).

The story doesn’t end there.

The Outcome

Hundreds of years later, Abraham’s descendants found themselves in the land of Egypt—Hagar’s country—and there they were enslaved, oppressed, and treated unfairly by the Egyptians. God, based on his covenant with Abraham, delivered the Israelites—who in their deliverance traveled the same path as Hagar.

Hagar left Egypt as an enslaved woman (Gen. 16:1); the Israelites left as enslaved people (Ex. 13:3). Hagar was cast out of Abraham’s house (Gen. 21:9-14) and the Israelites were cast out of Egypt (Ex. 12:33) . After leaving Abraham’s house, Hagar wandered in the desert seeking water (Gen. 21:15-19), as did the Israelites after leaving Egypt (Gen. 17:1-6).

It is not a coincidence that Abraham and Sarah’s descendants ended up in the same position as Hagar, the enslaved woman that they mistreated. There are consequences for our actions, the full ramifications of which we cannot comprehend. So whatever you are doing, or whatever action you’re taking, imagine that God is right there listening to you.

Because He is.

The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the LORD tests hearts.

—Proverbs 17:3

The parallels in this proverb are very interesting:

1. The refining pot is matched with the Lord, so we see that in the same way precious metals are purified by the refining pot, the Lord purifies people’s hearts.

2. The silver/gold is matched with people’s hearts.  It reminds us that while people place high values on silver and gold, God places a high value on people’s hearts.

Lovely and insightful imagery.

When Jesus moved closer to where they were, He told them to go see the priests. This would have been very encouraging for them, because under the Law, the priests were the ones who declared lepers clean.  So the lepers went, and as they were going to see the priests, they found themselves healed!

In seconds, Jesus had changed their lives.  Once they were declared clean, they would no longer be social outcasts. They would be able interact freely with friends and family, and would be restored to fellowship with the rest of their communities.  One man, when he saw that he was healed, was so happy he returned and glorified God “with a loud voice.”

The other nine?  Not so much.

Jesus noticed their absence, and responded to the one man’s thanksgiving by asking: “where are the nine?”  He knew that He had healed 10 men—the exact number.  When Jesus told them to go see the priests, it wasn’t because of any disinterest on His part. He didn’t just see a group of men; He saw each one of them.  They were sent to the priests because the priests were the ones designated by God to validate their condition, and to help the men to be received back into the community. Jesus was looking out for the men’s best interests when He sent them to the priests.

But only one was thankful enough to return and glorify God.

It is easy for us to see the failings of the nine former lepers who showed no gratitude. Obvious, even.  More challenging is to look at our own lives and see where we have not glorified God  or recognized His blessings and work in our lives.

Take some time today and thank God for everything He is doing and has done in your life.

God’s Glory: God was glorified by the healing of 10 men (seemingly at the same time) and also by the gratitude of those who were healed—even when that gratitude is loud!

The poor are shunned even by their neighbors, but the rich have many friends.

—Proverbs 14:20

You definitely get the sense from this proverb that the rich person’s friends are really “following the money.” Which would mean, of course, that they aren’t true friends at all.