![\"woman_frog\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/03\/woman_frog.jpg?resize=350%2C350&ssl=1\" "\\"woman_frog\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This post is the third one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.\u00a0 Doug, a strong complementarian has been given the opportunity to ask Paul about tough passages of scripture that Doug thought were clear to him.\u00a0 In his dialog with Paul, Doug is troubled by the implications of what he has been hearing and in this third interview Doug has decided to push Paul on the issue of the universality of “woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.<\/p>\n
The first interview with the Apostle Paul and Doug is located here<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 The\u00a0 second interview is located here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Did you have a good sleep and did you have time to think about what we have been discussing?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I didn’t sleep well last night, but I have been thinking about the concept of two or three witnesses needed to establish a matter. Yet somehow\u00a0 I can’t get beyond the universality of 1 Timothy 2:12.\u00a0 Didn’t you say that women are not allowed to teach men?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Brother Doug the lesson you need to learn today is that you must consider the whole.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Huh?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>What I mean is that I wrote some hard passages of scripture that cannot be understood piecemeal.\u00a0 The passages must be considered in whole and not in parts ripped from the context.\u00a0 Otherwise my intended meaning falls to the ground.\u00a0 Let’s look at the full passage of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.\u00a0 After verse 11 what do you notice about the beginning of each verse?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Verse 12 starts with “but”, verse 13 with “for”, verse 14 with “and” and then verse 15 starts with “but”.\u00a0 It does<\/strong><\/em> seem like these verses are all connected together.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>That’s right.\u00a0 Each verse joins together with the next verse and together they make one complete thought.\u00a0 When I wrote to Timothy I was very concerned about a specific problem in Ephesus that was a sticky situation for Timothy and he sure needed my help.\u00a0 When I wrote to Timothy I alluded to the problem, which Timothy already knew about, I also gave him the solution to the problem, the reason for the problem and the expected outcome after the problem was fixed.\u00a0 I wrote all of this to instruct Timothy regarding what he should do and I also wanted to encourage him on the good results that I was expecting.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> So how were we supposed to know that this was about a situation in Ephesus and not meant for all women?\u00a0 It sure seems to me that it was written as a general instruction.\u00a0 In fact when I look up commentaries on this passage, they all seem to think that you were talking about the role of women forbidden to be official teachers in the church.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>That is a good question and I can help you with that.\u00a0 Before I give you an answer, why don’t you tell me what you think I intended when I wrote this set of verses?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I think you were pretty clear.\u00a0 You said that the woman’s role is to be quiet and learn.\u00a0 You do not want women to teach or have authority over men in the church because their role is to be quiet while the role of the men is to speak out as the spiritual authority and as the doctrinal teachers of the church.\u00a0 After all God gave man the preeminent first position.\u00a0\u00a0 God’s original design was reversed when the woman took the man’s role by speaking out to the serpent and by her trying to speak for God.\u00a0 She fell into sin first when she usurped the man’s role. \u00a0 God has promised women that if they stick to their assigned roles and do not seek to be teachers of men, then they will have protection from deception.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>That is quite an interpretation.\u00a0 It seems to me that you think I was saying that if a woman publicly speaks out about what she has learned in a way that appears to be teaching, then she has usurped the role of men.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I think that says it pretty well.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Hogwash! That interpretation would cause me to contradict myself.\u00a0 In the book of Corinthians I wrote that when the whole church assembles together all<\/strong><\/em> may speak out so that all<\/strong><\/em> may learn.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 14:23,24\u00a0 Therefore if the whole church assembles together<\/strong> and … all prophesy<\/strong>, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all<\/strong>;<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 14:31\u00a0 For you can all prophesy<\/strong> one by one, so that all may learn<\/strong> and all may be exhorted;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I don’t think that is real teaching and it certainly isn’t preaching.\u00a0\u00a0 I have heard that women aren’t allowed to preach because only men can speak in a powerful way to bring conviction to the consciences of men.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Let’s go back through this one more time.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 14:24 – if an unbeliever or someone that is untaught comes into your midst and all speak publicly in prophesy, he will be convicted<\/strong><\/em> by all<\/strong><\/em> and called to account<\/strong><\/em> by all<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This kind of prophesying calls a sinner to repentance and is used by God to bring conviction.\u00a0 The results of this kind of prophesying expose the secret sins of the heart.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 14:25\u00a0 the secrets of his heart are disclosed<\/strong>; and so he will fall on his face <\/strong>and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The sinner will have his sin exposed and brought to his attention and he will come under conviction and repent.\u00a0 Brother Doug, this is anointed preaching at its best.\u00a0 Do you see that this is allowed in public<\/strong><\/em> with the church assembled together<\/strong><\/em>?\u00a0 This is not the realm of the male alone.\u00a0 It is the realm of the whole church.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Well then maybe a woman is allowed to teach unsaved people in the church but she is not allowed to teach Christian men.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Double hogwash!\u00a0 The teaching and the learning is to be done by all<\/strong><\/em> and for all<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 This is the the purpose for the assembly of the church.<\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:26,31\u00a0 … When you assemble<\/strong>, each one<\/strong> …has a teaching<\/strong>, … For you can all prophesy<\/strong> one by one, so that all may learn<\/strong> and all may be exhorted;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Greek word for teaching is the word that means doctrine.\u00a0 If teaching doctrine is a man’s “role” then it is also a woman’s “role” because God made the woman to be a helper in the same realm as the man.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> But why did you say that women cannot teach?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>I didn’t.\u00a0 I gave Timothy instructions for the whole church and then when I changed the subject I also changed the grammar.\u00a0 Did you notice that I went from the plural in verse 9 to singular in verse 11?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Yes I saw that, but I thought you were talking about the same thing.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Then why would I need to change the grammar to singular?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I don’t know.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>If I was continuing to talk about all women and all men in general, then the clearest way<\/strong><\/em> to show this would have been to simply carry on with the plural, wouldn’t that be true?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Sure.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>The grammar was changed for a purpose.\u00a0 I was writing to Timothy and he was not confused about what I wrote.\u00a0 I wrote the singular form of man and woman because of a specific problem.\u00a0 Timothy was left behind to stop the false teachers.\u00a0 There was one specific false teacher that posed a real challenge.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> How would we know that you were talking about false teaching?\u00a0 You didn’t say that “a woman” can’t teach false<\/strong><\/em> doctrine to “a man”.\u00a0 You just said that she cannot teach<\/strong><\/em> a man.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>The entire context is about deception.\u00a0 The only teaching that is completely forbidden in the context of the letter is false teaching.\u00a0 In chapter one I talk about those who are teaching error and then in chapter two I bring up the deception (verse 14) as a reason for the prohibition.\u00a0 Why would you think that I was stopping godly teaching when I gave the reason for the prohibition as deception?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> It is because of the word that you used.\u00a0 False teaching has a different Greek word not the word you used.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>And you are trying to educate me<\/strong><\/em> in Greek?\u00a0 I am impressed!\u00a0 Let me show you that you are wrong.\u00a0 Words that normally can mean a good thing can also mean bad things depending on the context.\u00a0 Look at Revelation 2:20.<\/p>\n Rev 2:20\u00a0 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches <\/strong>and leads<\/strong> My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice that Jezebel teaches and leads<\/strong> and these two words are normally good things.\u00a0 In fact the word for “teach” here is the same one<\/span> that I used in 1 Timothy 2:12.\u00a0 But do you see that the context<\/strong><\/em> shows that Jezebel is not teaching that which is good nor is she leading in a good way?\u00a0 The context defines the word<\/span>.\u00a0 The context surrounding 1 Timothy 2:12 is deception.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> If<\/strong><\/em> you wanted us to know that the teaching you wanted stopped is the teaching of error, then why did you connect it to Adam being created first?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>I connected it to Adam because the first one created had something that immunized him from being deceived.\u00a0 Eve did not have this immunity because she was created after an event that Adam alone was privy to.\u00a0 Knowledge of a significant event protected Adam and his knowledge should have been used to protect Eve. Adam should never have been silent and allowed Eve to be deceived.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> What was the thing that gave Adam immunity?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>That will have to remain for another day when we are talking about the subject of Genesis.\u00a0 Time is so short for my stay here, but I will add it to the list of things to talk about.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> So tell me how would we know that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 was not talking about women in general?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>I have already given you in the two previous interviews the importance of a second witness.\u00a0 Today I can add to that foundation, and it is the fact that the grammar of verses 14 & 15 proves that this passage is not about all women.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Prove it.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Okay I will.\u00a0 Verse 14 is definite “the<\/strong><\/em> woman” but the grammar in this verse shows that although the deception of Eve is the model, the one called “the woman” is alive at the time of writing because the sin is continuing.\u00a0 The grammar is the perfect tense<\/strong><\/em> which means that the results of her actions are continuing.\u00a0 She is still in that transgression.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Couldn’t this be Eve’s sin continuing?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>No because Eve is dead and gone and her transgression is not having a continuing action for her.\u00a0 Neither her deception or her transgression is continuing because she is dead.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Okay, so verse 14 is a specific woman, but isn’t verse 15 about generic woman?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>No.\u00a0 If I wanted to speak about generic woman I would have made the grammar to be singular or I could have made it plural.\u00a0 I would not have moved from a singular to plural.\u00a0 The grammar is specific to a single woman and a couple (they).<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Most commentators see 1 Timothy 2:15 as a shift from the singular to the plural as a proof that you are talking about women in general.\u00a0 In fact many translations say\u00a0 “women<\/strong><\/em> will be saved…if they<\/strong><\/em>“.\u00a0 They make it a matched plural.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>But this is not the way it was written by me.\u00a0 This is putting an interpretation<\/strong><\/em> into the translation.\u00a0 Also where is the second witness?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> What do you mean?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Do you remember when we were talking about the importance of every matter to be established by two or three witnesses?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Yes.\u00a0 I think you proved that quite well to me.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>So where is a second witness<\/strong><\/em> that proves that a singular person can be called both she and they in the same sentence?\u00a0 Show me even one example in the Old Testament or the New Testament where there is another example of such a piece of grammar.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I have never heard of grammar being used this way except for 1 Timothy 2:15.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>You are right because there is no second witness<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 The “experts” are wrong.\u00a0 There is not even one example of grammar like this in the entire bible that would establish a documented case.\u00a0 This is because this kind of grammar is in error.\u00a0 If I wanted to make 1 Timothy 2:15 to be about all women I could have said “She will be saved…if she” or “They will be saved…if they”, but it is a grievous error to say “She<\/strong><\/em> will be saved…if they<\/strong><\/em>” if “she” and “they” are the same thing – generic woman.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Are you trying to tell me that the commentaries are wrong?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Yes I am.\u00a0 And you can tell them they are wrong too.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> How do I do that?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Ask them to give you a second biblical witness for a piece of grammar that makes a generic person to be called\u00a0 singular and plural.\u00a0 For example ask them if there is any other place in the bible where she<\/strong><\/em> is called they<\/strong><\/em> or he<\/strong><\/em> is called they<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n