![\"woman_surprise\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/03\/woman_surprise.jpg?resize=233%2C350&ssl=1\" "\\"woman_surprise\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This post is the fourth 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.<\/p>\n
Doug, a strong complementarian has still more questions for Paul on 1 Timothy 2:11-15.\u00a0 Let’s listen in.<\/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>.\u00a0 The third interview is located here<\/strong><\/a>.)<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Nice to see you again brother Doug.\u00a0 Are we ready to move on to another hard passage today?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Oh no!\u00a0 I still have more questions on the 1 Timothy 2 passage.\u00a0 I don’t quite understand what we are supposed to get from this passage if it was a local situation.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>There are two important things that we should review to make sure that you clearly understand what I have been teaching you.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Okay, go ahead.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>The first thing that is vital to know, and we went over this the last couple of interviews, is that it is impossible for the 1 Timothy 2 passage to be a new law the forbids women from teaching men.\u00a0 The principle of two or three witnesses rules out a universal law since there is no second witness.\u00a0 The second thing that you must remember is that the letter was written to Timothy and Timothy<\/strong><\/em> understood my letter to him.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Well that is fine to say, but don’t you think that we<\/strong><\/em> should be able to understand your letter too?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Yes, I do.\u00a0 However there are several issues that make my letter hard for those outside of the specific situation to understand.\u00a0 This is why Peter said that some of the things that I write are difficult.<\/p>\n 2 Peter 3:15\u00a0 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, When we started our discussions, I told you what my letter cannot<\/strong><\/em> mean.\u00a0 Once we can eliminate the false understanding, it is easier for you to understand what I did<\/strong><\/em> mean.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Why is that?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>Because as soon as one tests 1 Timothy 2:12 against all other biblical laws and against the Old and New Testament principle of two or three witnesses, one must come to the conclusion that all women cannot<\/strong><\/em> be the subject of the prohibition in verse 12.\u00a0 Besides you will notice that I didn’t say that “God<\/strong><\/em> doesn’t allow…”\u00a0 I said “I<\/strong><\/em> am not allowing a woman to teach or authentein<\/strong><\/em> a man”.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Don’t you mean “exercise authority over”?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong> No, my son.\u00a0 I used the exact word<\/strong><\/em> that Timothy<\/strong><\/em> would understand.\u00a0 It was a rare<\/strong><\/em> word that fit perfectly the situation that we were dealing with.\u00a0\u00a0 That should have been a red flag for you.\u00a0 After all, nowhere in the Bible is authentein<\/strong><\/em> ever given to anyone to do<\/strong><\/em> to another person.\u00a0 Do you see that?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I didn’t know that.\u00a0 I thought that men were given this <\/strong><\/em>authority many times in scripture.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong> Not at all.\u00a0 The action described by the word authentein is never ever<\/strong><\/em> given to a Christian to act on.\u00a0 No man is given permission to authentein a man or a woman and no woman is ever given permission<\/strong><\/em> to authentein even another woman<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 The meaning of this word is not related to Christian activity<\/strong><\/em> and this is why it is never<\/strong><\/em> used in scripture other than this one time where it is used as a prohibition.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Paul please tell me what this word means.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong> I am not going to give the meaning to you because I want you to learn a principle that goes beyond the use of this one unique word.\u00a0 Here is the principle:\u00a0 When a doctrine is based upon one unique word used only one time in the Bible, and this doctrine has no second witness,\u00a0 it is a doctrine built on sand.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Why are you so forceful on this issue?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span> <\/strong>It is because there are so many false doctrines that have crept into the church.\u00a0 When a passage is taken outside of its context and when a doctrine is established on a passage that has no valid second witness, the church can be greatly harmed.<\/p>\n When I was walking over here, I stopped to talk to several people who called themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses.\u00a0 They told me that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and they gave me the reference of 1 Thessalonians 4:16<\/p>\n 1 Thess 4:16\u00a0 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel<\/strong>, and with the trumpet of God …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They said that the only archangel named in scripture is Michael so Jesus is Michael the archangel.\u00a0 Now I could have have made comment to them that Jesus must also be a trumpet since “the Lord” is also coming with the trumpet of God, but I chose to ask them for a second witness, one that says that Jesus is the archangel Michael.\u00a0 I gave them the same spiel about the principle of two or three witnesses.\u00a0 Guess what?\u00a0 They had no second witness.\u00a0 I told them their doctrine was invalid.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> What did they say back to you?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> They said that this is what the apostle Paul meant and Paul didn’t have to repeat himself and I told them I was the Apostle Paul.\u00a0 I have never seen people run so fast in all my life!\u00a0 I didn’t even get a chance to tell them that I had been transported from the New Testament times to answer questions.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> They probably thought you were a spirit.\u00a0 You are getting into your share of trouble while you are here.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> That always happens when you tell the truth to someone who doesn’t want to know the truth.\u00a0 Such a shame.\u00a0 Well, let’s move on to the meaning of verse 12.\u00a0 Remember I told you that Timothy understood what I wrote him.\u00a0 It was a situation that Timothy was very <\/strong><\/em>familiar with and he didn’t need me to tell the whole story for him to get it.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> So if the “a woman” in verse 12 doesn’t mean all women, what does it mean?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> It means a particular woman.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Why didn’t you say “the woman” instead of “a woman”?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> I did within the passage itself.\u00a0 Look at verse 14.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 2:14\u00a0 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman<\/strong> being deceived, fell into transgression.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The grammar here is the perfect tense.<\/p>\n The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a present<\/strong><\/em> state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state<\/strong><\/em>; the past action is a completed action.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fall into transgression is a complete state but the transgression is a continuing state.\u00a0 The woman I was communicating to Timothy about was still in this state and this<\/strong><\/em> was the problem.<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> But how does “the woman” from verse 14 connect with “a woman” from verse 12?<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> It is simple.\u00a0 The passage is one complete thought and a noun can be definite with or without the definite word “the”. Look at this example from my own writing:<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 12:2\u00a0 I know a man<\/strong> in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Do you think\u00a0 “a man” was all men<\/strong><\/em> or just any man at all or representative of all men<\/strong><\/em>, or do you understand that I was talking about a specific individual?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> I know that it was a specific individual.\u00a0 In fact I have always understood this to be you.\u00a0 You called yourself “a man” because you were not wanting to boast about your visions.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> And I am still not wanting to boast.\u00a0 But do you see that an indefinite noun can be definite depending on the context?<\/p>\n Doug:<\/span><\/strong> Sure.<\/p>\n Paul:<\/span><\/strong> Let’s look back at 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in the ESV<\/p>\n 1 Tim 2:11\u00a0 Let a woman<\/strong> learn quietly with all submissiveness. In verse 11 we have a noun without the article but it is still to be considered definite because the passage is connected together.\u00a0 Why is “woman” not allowed to teach?\u00a0 I stated the reasons and the outcome in the next verses.\u00a0 For<\/strong><\/em>.. and<\/strong><\/em>…but<\/strong><\/em> “the<\/strong><\/em> woman” was deceived (and the transgression<\/strong><\/em> is a continuing state<\/strong><\/em>) yet she will be save<\/strong><\/em>d<\/strong>…<\/p>\n The one who will be saved<\/strong><\/em> is the same one<\/strong><\/em> who is in a state of transgression and the same one<\/strong><\/em> who isn’t allowed to teach and the same one<\/strong><\/em> who is to be allowed and encouraged to learn.\u00a0 It is impossible to remove the connection between “the woman” and the anarthrous noun in verses 11 & 12<\/strong><\/em> because the entire passage is connected together with conjunctions<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 The context is one woman<\/strong><\/em> who is deceived and who must not teach while she is in her state of deception.\u00a0 But she will be saved if she is allowed and encouraged to learn and she remains in the truth that she learns and has self-control to stay away from the deception.<\/p>\n
\n2 Peter 3:16\u00a0 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand<\/strong>, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n1 Ti 2:12\u00a0 I do not permit a woman<\/strong> to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
\n1 Ti 2:13\u00a0 For<\/strong> …
\n1 Ti 2:14\u00a0 and<\/strong> … but the woman<\/strong> was deceived and became a transgressor.
\n1 Ti 2:15\u00a0 Yet she<\/strong> will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n