07 Does Paul Forbid Women from Teaching Men? (1 Timothy 2:9-15)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. 1 Timothy 2.12 is often treated as a clear prohibition on what women may do in the church. But what if we've assumed of the wrong settings of Paul's words? I've spent years trying to prove the view I'm about to explain wrong, and I failed. In this episode, I'll explain why I've changed my mind and landed on a minority view. I'll follow the context, examine the dispute, and consider how this minority view changes the passage from a rule about women and leadership to a call for godliness and trust. This is the seventh talk in my series on the book of 1 Timothy. Today we will study 1 Timothy 2, verses 9 through 15. I'm really glad you joined me. We are spending another podcast on 1 Timothy 2, 9 through 15, because it is one of the most controversial and debated chapters in the New Testament. In the last podcast, I gave you an overview of the debate, and if you haven't listened to that, I encourage you to do so first. Generally speaking, the debate falls into three schools of thought: egalitarian, hard complementarian, and soft complementarian. I gave a brief summary of each position and showed you the main interpretive points where they differ. Today I'm going to give you my good-for-nothing understanding of the chapter. My understanding has changed over the years. I have adopted a minority view. For me, what changed is my understanding of the context and how much weight I give to it. You'll remember that the surrounding context is one of the issues on which the debate turns. I have always assumed that chapter two is talking about corporate worship and how men and women are to conduct themselves in the church during public worship. Because I always like to understand all the sides of a debate, I have been reading people who challenge that assumption and argued that Paul isn't talking about public worship at all in either chapter two and sometimes in chapter three. Most notably, I'm indebted to the work of Dr. Jack Crabtree, and I will put a link to his talks on this subject in the lecture notes. After hearing Dr. Crabtree's view, I set out to prove him wrong. That was about 10 years ago when I heard him expound on this passage. And I set out to prove that public worship is and must be the context, and I cannot do it. I cannot find an argument more convincing. It's frustrating that a lot of people just assume that this chapter is all about corporate worship and they don't even address the issue because it's been the traditional view for so very long. So I realize what I'm about to explain is a minority view, and I realize I could be wrong. I am not adding anything new to the debate, except maybe to get more exposure to the minority view. Other people before me have argued for this and they have persuaded me. So for whatever it's worth, here's how I understand 1 Timothy 2, verses 9 through 15. Since the context is one of the turning points for me, let me start there. Let me remind you of how I'm approaching this chapter. In fact, how I've been approaching this book, because I must admit, one of the turning points for me was studying the book in its entirety and not just chapter two that helped swing my vote. I have argued that Paul has been on this theme of godliness, and that chapter two fits into that theme. He introduced this theme first in chapter one, verse five. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. He continues in 118, the charge I entrust you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may fight the good fight, holding faith and a good conscience. He continues in 2.2, pray for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. We see its opposite in 2.8, a desire that in every place men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger and quarreling. And we're going to see it in this passage, in 2.10, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness with good works. And he's going to conclude with it in the last verse, 215, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control. Now I've talked about this a lot. If you haven't been listening to the podcast, you might want to go back and listen to some of the previous episodes where I explain this theme more fully. I see these phrases, particularly the three words good contents, which is sunadesis, quiet, which is Hesukia, and self-control, which is sofra sune, as working together to fill out this picture, Paul has been painting of leading a godly life. They aren't quite synonyms of each other, but they are related aspects of this theme of godliness that Paul has been developing throughout this letter. We've talked about a good conscience being an accurate understanding of the gospel that guides our judgment and our choices. So having a good conscience does not mean I'm innocent. It means I have a solid, accurate understanding of the truth, and then I choose to live on the basis of that truth. I act on it. I evaluate my life and my choices through this accurate understanding of truth and the gospel. Self-control, suffracine is a sober-mindedness or soundness of mind. People with soundness of mind understand that God is their creator and they are his creatures. They understand that God has the right to define right and wrong and define what good and evil are, and they seek to live within those boundaries. So they are right-minded in that sense. And that right-mindedness produces what he calls quiet or Hesukiya. That's not silence. It's quiet in the sense of calm, calm of spirit. It's the opposite of the inward rage, resentment, discontent, and restless refusal to accept the limits God has placed on you. So it's calm, quiet contentment that grows out of a deep, profound trust in God. And we saw that Paul applied this principle first to men in relationship to the people in authority over them, kings and rulers. And now I think he's turning to women and applying the same principle to the people they are in authority under, namely husbands. So this chapter began, first of all, then I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men. So remember the chapter started with first of all, well, first of what? What's he doing in this chapter? And I think that refers back to the charge in 118. This I charge you, Timothy, that you fight the good fight holding faith and a good conscience. So Paul has charged, fight the good fight in pursuit of this thing he calls a good conscience and sincere faith. Here's the first thing I want to tell you about that fight. The first area we're going to apply this principle and talk about how this fight may be fought is let's look at what it means for people who are under authority figures. One of the places you're going to struggle to hold on to your faith, to trust God and keep this good conscience is in dealing with the authority figures in your life. For men, that will primarily be kings and government rulers. For women, that's going to be their husbands. If I'm right, that means that chapter two is all one section. It's an argument in support of one point. It's not a collection of related ideas surrounding men and women. There is a unified theme running through it. And that one main theme is what Paul wants Timothy to promote and build and hold on to. And that one main theme has nothing to do with Sunday morning worship. There are three Greek words that are rarely used in the New Testament, but they all come up in this passage, and they come up several times. And I think those three words give us a clue to his point, and they relate to this theme of godliness. The first word is this word translated peaceful by the ESV or tranquil in the New American Standard. It occurs only here in 1 Timothy 2.2. The second one is quiet, that's the Hesukia I talked about earlier. It occurs in 1 Timothy 2.2 and in 1 Peter 3.4. And then the third one is self-control, that's the sofrasune, which means sober-minded. It occurs in 1 Timothy 2.9, 2.15, and then one time in Acts. Notice that these words occur both in relation to men and to women. So there's this continuity between what he wants the men to do and what he wants the women to do. The idea of tranquility, quietness, and self-restraint carries through both sections, both the one addressed to men and the one addressed to women. And those two sections are joined by a likewise in 2.9. Both men and women are to fight the good fight, to hold on to faith and good conscience. The struggle and the goal are the same, but the particular area where they struggle will be different. But no matter what the area we're struggling, the goal is this inward, calm spirit of contentment and acceptance of and submission to the will of God because we believe the gospel and we trust Him. There's basically two ways to respond to our lives. We can become discontent, angry, and bitter, or we can accept whatever God gives us with grateful contentment and acceptance. Imagine two women who find out the same day that they are both fired, their whole department's being eliminated, and they are stunned. The first one starts complaining, arguing, and fighting. She talks about how unfair it is. She talks about how much she's given to the company and she demands a review with this spirit of anger, discontent, and bitterness. And when she goes home, she yells at God for letting this happen to her. The second woman quietly asks for the same review and respectfully summarizes what she's done for the company. She lays out her case and she waits. And as she waits, she grieves the loss and starts figuring out what the next step might be. When she gets home, she turns to God and asks him, What is the next step? Same news, completely different spirit. And it's that spirit I think that Paul is driving toward. That's what he's getting at by this whole theme of godliness. He wants us to have this peaceful, quiet, self-controlled, right-minded attitude. And both men and women need to have it. And we looked at the section that he addressed to men in the previous podcast. Why pray for kings and bureaucrats and those who are in authority? Because those who are in authority over our lives can bring out our rage and discontentment. The authority figures can make our lives miserable, and we resent and despise their rules and regulations that put limits on us. And Paul is saying, that's the kind of rage I want you to abandon. Ultimately, God determines who is going to be your king or your president. Ultimately, God works through history through people like the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Democrats, and the Republicans. Your choice is to be angry about it or to be content with God's plan and pray for them. That's a quick summary of what we looked at last week. Now he turns to women, and I think he makes the same point. He wants them to have the same attitude of calm contentment. So he says, likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness with good works. So likewise, just like I want the men to have this inner contentment without wrath and dissension, the contentment that results in prayer even for their enemies, so I want women to be more concerned with their inner contentment than their outward beauty. The most important adornment is not clothing, it's godliness. And he wants women to be adorned with this tranquil inner calm he's been talking about. The most important adornment is not outward braided hair, gold, and pearls. The most important adornment is this inner attitude, this inner spirit of humble contentment before God. The word modest here is only used twice in the New Testament, here in Timothy and then in Hebrews 12, 28, where it is translated awe. I don't think it really should be translated modesty as if referring to clothing. Rather, it should be more like reverence or awe as referring to our attitude toward God. So I would paraphrase that I want women to adorn themselves with metaphorical clothes that are truly adorning. True adornment is not found in the physical things like braiding jewelry, rather, in a reverent and sober attitude toward God. Conduct your life in a way that expresses this trust and this comic substance of who you are and what God has created you to be. So I don't think his point is anything at all about fashion by proper clothing. I think he just means clothing, the clothing that really matters, the metaphorical clothing that is truly beautiful, the metaphorical clothing that makes you truly beautiful. So he's saying skip all that outward stuff. What makes a woman beautiful is her inward attitude toward God because she's adorning herself with godliness, with good works. Now he's going to explain that. What kind of good works are we talking about here? The same thing that should characterize your husbands in the first eight verses. Let's bring in 11 and 12. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather, she is to remain quiet. Now many people before me have commented on this phrase, let a woman learn, because that was a radical statement for its day. In many cultures at the time, the idea of a woman learning was a ridiculous concept. Women didn't need to be educated, they thought. And here Paul assumes, of course, women will learn. And when she's learning, here's the attitude she should have while learning. Now, one of the interpretive questions is whether Paul is talking about men and women in general, or whether Paul is talking about husbands and wives. And the words, the Greek words used here are the same. Context tells us which is which. And we have things like this in English all the time. And we don't even think twice about it. If I say no man is an island, nobody hears that and pictures a single guy stranded somewhere, you know instantly that I mean humanity, all of us, men and women alike. But if I say there's a man at the front door, then you do picture one specific guy standing on the porch. It's the same word, two completely different meanings, and nothing in the word tells you which one is intended. It's the sentence around it or the context that tells you which I mean. Well, that's exactly the problem we run into in Greek. The word for man and the word for husband are the same word. The word for women and the word for wife are the same word. So every single time these words show up, we ask the question, is this the general or is this the specific? And the only thing that can answer the question is context. That's true in Ephesians 5, and that's true here in Timothy. Now, sometimes Paul gives us a clue, he'll say something like his own woman or her own man, clearly indicating he means husband and wife. We don't have a clue here either way. The history of English translation is to assume he means all women and all men, but it is just as valid an interpretive option to assume he means husbands and wives. In all my reading, and I've done a lot of reading on this chapter, most people assume this verse must be taken as all men and all women. It's tradition, and they don't explain it. The best argument I found for taking it as all men and all women is that in the very next section, Paul's going to talk about elders and deacons. Since he's talking about leadership in the church in chapter three, people argue he must be talking about teaching in the church here in chapter two. Well, in my view, that's a fairly weak argument. People who understand him to mean all men and all women say, see, he points to Genesis, and Genesis is a paradigm for all men and women. People who think he means husbands and wives say, look, Paul points to Genesis, and Genesis is the paradigm for marriage, so we know he means husbands and wives. You can see the problem here. As I mentioned, about 10 years ago, I heard Jack Crabtree argue that Paul means husbands and wives. He made a pretty strong case for it. I've been pondering it ever since and trying to prove him wrong, and I can't. He presents a good interpretive option, and in fact, taking this as husbands and wives solves a lot of the other interpretive issues. In many ways, I think it makes more sense than the alternatives. So at this point, my understanding has shifted. I now think Paul is addressing husbands and wives, in particular, in this section, for several reasons. First, Paul has been talking about the authority figures that we most chafe under. For husbands or men, the annoying authority figure is kings, bureaucrats, bosses, and people they must submit to in life and work. For wives, especially in Paul's day, the annoying authority figure is their husband as head of the household. I think Genesis is clearly a paradigm for head and helper in marriage. I don't think it's as clearly generalized to all men and all women as people have argued. So in that sense, I am a thoroughgoing complementarian. I do believe that scripture teaches the role of head and helper in marriage. I also believe that no passage of scripture in either testament ever teaches that all men have all authority over all women. I believe headship is an authority that is limited in scope to marriage. So it makes sense for Paul to address the authority figures in the lives of women as their husbands because at the time he wrote, 99.9% of women of marriageable age were married, and their authority figure is their husband. If not, it's their father. Some have suggested that this is the one and only passage that teaches universal male authority. Let's just say I find that highly unlikely, but I don't want to get sidetracked on the issues of the debate in this podcast. If I'm right, that's a big if, if I'm right, that means the critical issue in this section is not gender. It's your role as wife. It's not her gender that places her under the authority of a man. It is her covenant commitment to him in marriage that puts her in that role. She took vows to join a particular relationship, and that relationship carries a particular set of commitments. So if I'm right, and I recognize I may be wrong, what Paul is saying is a wife in quietness, that's Heisukyo, a wife with that inner humble calm of accepting who you are and what God has asked of you is to receive instruction. At this point, it makes more sense to me that he's talking about how a woman should learn and listen in her marriage than on how she should learn and listen in a public church service. Paul doesn't specify that this is a public worship event. We have to make that interpretive choice from the context. And I found when I went to try to make the case for it being a public church service, I couldn't make a very strong case. Perhaps you could argue from this word learn that learn implies a teacher student kind of relationship, and that would open the door to it being a public worship service. And therefore, we're talking about church leadership. But this is just the ordinary Greek verb for learning. The NASB translates it receive instruction. The ESV translates it learn. It's used of students in a classroom setting, but it's also used of children in the home and generally any situation where someone learns something from someone else. It is possible that Paul has a mind a classroom setting and he wants female students to listen attentively without comment or debate or interaction. But that seems to me to be a radical departure from the context of verses one through eight, talking about authority figures in the lives of men. It just seems to make more sense that when he says likewise, he's going to talk about the authority figures in the lives of women, which at the time for most women was her husband, not her church. So I don't think anything in the context that requires Paul to be talking about formal learning in a classroom or a public church service, unless you think the only time men prayed was during corporate worship, especially the only time they prayed for the salvation of kings or something was during public worship. It seems more likely to me that he's talking about a headship and a marriage. He's talking about a marriage relationship between a husband and wife who have decisions they need to make. What are we going to do with our lives? Where are we going to live? How are we going to raise our kids? And the command is to listen respectfully and openly, without wrath and dissension. I don't think he means that women or wives are to say yes, sir, without comment or interaction, because part of a wife's role is to be a helper. Yes, sir, is no help at all. Acquiescence, without any offering of biblical wisdom and understanding, is abdicating that role. It's no help at all. The contrast here is not between accepting instruction without comment or accepting instruction with comment. The contrast is between listening and accepting instruction with respect and contentment, trusting that God is in control, versus accepting instruction with wrath, rebellion, and condescension. Essentially, it's the same point he made to men. You can be angry and bitter and rage against the authority figure in your life, or you can trust God for the authority figure in your life and respond with inner calm and quiet with this attitude of respect and careful listening. So he's not saying you have to agree without comment. He's saying you should comment without wrath, rage, anger, or bitterness. You should be able to listen and respond to your husband with respect and in inner quiet and speak the truth in love. Accept your role in the marriage relationship and offer the best, wisest biblical counsel you can with respect and love rather than picking a fight, getting angry, or rebelling against it. So picture a couple sitting at the kitchen table. There's a job offer on the table. Literally, there's a piece of paper between them, and it means moving the whole family across the country. She thinks it's a bad idea, and maybe she's right. Maybe the kids are finally settled, maybe she's watched her husband chased three big opportunities before that didn't pan out, and maybe she can see something he can't see yet. In that situation, here's what I think quietness looks like and doesn't look like. She makes her case like she believes it matters, because it does. And then if he still says, I've considered all of that, and I still think we ought to move, she doesn't spend the next two years reminding him she said so. She trusts that God has a plan. So that's a wife offering real help instead of a rubber stamp or a power struggle. And notice that's a completely different posture than saying nothing at all. Now remember, Paul also wrote Ephesians 5, and in that letter he instructs husbands to love their wives as their own bodies, even to the point of dying for them. It's the same kind of attitude he's calling for here. A woman should receive instruction with a submissive attitude of contentment. I do not permit a wife to give instructions, that is, to impose her own will on her husband, rather, she is to accept his headship with contentment. Now we've talked about this word for authority and how it is one of the words on which the debate turns. The word occurs only once in the New Testament, right here in 1 Timothy. It's a compound with the word for self, and it has the idea of exercising authority in a positive sense or imposing yourself in a negative sense. And does Paul mean it positively or negatively here is one of the big points of debate. And this is where we run into the concept of hendiadis again. There's a lot of debate over whether the phrase to teach and to have authority is one idea or two ideas. And I've heard people argue from the Greek both ways. Both sides emphatically insist the Greek requires it to be their choice. Now remember, a hendiadist is two coordinated words that express one idea. If I said she disciplined the kids with love and patience, you wouldn't picture two separate things. You wouldn't picture her first disciplining them with love and then unrelatedly disciplining them with patience. You'd hear one idea. This is a particular kind of discipline, a loving patient discipline. That's a hinditus. Two words, one idea. And I think to teach or to exercise authority works the same way. Not two separate prohibitions stacked on each other, but one idea teaching in a way that imposes her will. Now, plenty of Greek scholars land somewhere else on that point, and this is another one of those places where good, faithful interpreters disagree. If I'm right, all 212 is saying is basically, I don't permit the role reversal in marriage. She is not to instruct her husband in such a way as to impose her will on her husband. Rather, she is to accept with humility before God the rules he has established in marriage. Now, strictly speaking, it's not a role reversal because Paul would condemn a husband for imposing his will on his wife. Remember Ephesians 5, love her as Christ loved the church. But again, that's a talk for another day. If, and I do mean if, I'm right, then Paul isn't speaking to church leadership at all in this verse, and we have to figure out the roles for women in the church from other passages. And now we get to his appeal to Genesis. I'm going to read 213 through the first part of 3.1. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control. It is a trustworthy statement. Now I included that trustworthy statement because many translations take that phrase, it is a trustworthy statement, as referring to what comes next if a man aspires to the office of overseer. And I used to think that largely because of the chapter break. But I found some scholars who argued that it refers backwards to 213 through 15, and that makes a lot more sense. That would imply that this statement for Adam was formed first, then Eve, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor, and so on, that that is the trustworthy statement, that that has become a catchphrase. And we have these sayings in our modern usage. For example, I might say we are saved through faith alone, by grace alone, and Christ alone. And that's a summary statement for the teachings of the Reformation. When we hear that phrase, or when we use that phrase, we expect our listeners to understand Reformation theology, and we've encapsulated it into this caste phrase. That's the kind of thing Paul's quoting here, and we saw this earlier in 1.15. Well, I think 2, 13, and 14 has that same kind of structure that we'd expect of a summary statement, but 3.1 does not. 213 through 15 is clearly a shorthand way to refer to Genesis to the creation account. 3-1 and following is not really a reference to any particular scripture or any story. So 3-1 through 3 has none of the kind of structure we'd expect from a summary statement. But 213 through 15 does. It's cryptic, it's short, it's dense, and it assumes you know the story behind the words. So the statement then is this Adam was formed first, then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but his wife being completely deceived, he happened into transgression. That statement is reliable. That statement invites us to know the story of Genesis 2 and 3. Just like we are saved by the blood of Jesus invites us to know the gospel. Paul's not referring to the order of creation alone. It's not the fact that Adam was physically created first that's the issue. Paul expects his readers to know the entire creation story and the significance of that story, and this is a shorthand way to refer to it. So God created Adam out of the dust. He put him in the garden and gave him the task of cultivating the ground. He instructed Adam on what he could and could not eat. And then God said, It's not good for man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him. God then created Eve with a different role, that of helper. God created marriage as the answer to mankind's need for intimacy, and he created sexuality for the purpose of marriage. Now I've got all kinds of talks on Genesis and what those are in greater detail. I'm not going to go into the role of head and help for more than that. Paul explains this in a lot more detail in Ephesians 5, and I have other podcasts on the topic, which I will link to in the blog version of this podcast. The question we want to explore is how does that support what he just said in 211 and 12? Why does Paul not allow a wife to impose her authority on her husband? Why should she receive instruction from her husband with humble godliness and quietness? Because God assigned the husband the role of head and God will hold him accountable. Paul expects you to know what happened in the garden. The evil one came to Eve and completely and utterly deceived her, such that she probably thought she was doing something pleasing to God when in fact she was wrong. And then Genesis three six says, She gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Now, consider that moment in time. Eve put Adam in an impossible situation. She is forcing him to choose between her and God. His wife turns to him, and who knows what she said. But you could imagine it was something like, Hey, look, I ate. Don't you want to eat too? I really think you should eat too. She was probably still deceived into thinking she was doing a good thing, but Adam is not deceived. He knows that eating is wrong. And yet here is the wife he loves and may very well lose, saying, Choose what I say, don't choose what God says. And he has to choose between following God and following her. He can displease his wife by not eating, or he can displease God if he eats. So who is Adam going to listen to? Adam's eyes are wide open. Adam knows that he is displeasing God. Eve was deceived. She probably thinks, you know, there wasn't anything wrong with what I did, and it would be a good thing for Adam to eat too. But Adam is not deceived. He chooses to listen to the voice of his wife instead of listening to the voice of God. And then the fall happens, and that is why he's blamed. Eve didn't consciously choose to disobey God, she was deceived. Adam made the choice to disobey God. And one of the lessons I think Paul is drawing out of the story is a wife should never put her husband in that kind of position of forcing him to choose between her and God. Now, neither should any husband put his wife in that position either. But here in the garden, you have a situation where Eve was giving instructions to Adam. She wasn't doing it behind the pulpit in a pastoral teaching setting, but she was forcing a choice on him. And in that sense, she was imposing her will by forcing Adam to choose between her and God. And remember what God says to Adam after the fall when he confronts Adam. He says in Genesis 3.17, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife. You listen to her voice, the voice that told you to disobey me. You let her impose her will on you. You listened to her instructions and chose to disobey your Lord. I told you not to eat, she told you to eat, and you listen to her instead. Now, if I'm right, then Eve is a very real illustration of what Paul is instructing wives not to do. He's saying, Don't be like Eve and force that kind of a choice on your husband. Paul's saying, I don't permit a wife to give the kind of instructions that imposes her will on her husband, especially if that will opposes God's. Her temptation is going to be to rebel, to manipulate, and to use all kinds of wily and skillful means to get her way. And that's not okay. Instead, she should offer wise biblical advice and trust that God is in control. It's never okay to give instructions or advice that pitch your own will and your own desires against what God desires. Now we get to the question of who is verse 215 talking about? The ESV says she will be saved through childbearing. The New American Standard has women will be preserved through childbearing, but the word woman or women is not in the text. And you'll notice that the NASB put it in gray italics to tell you they added it. The ESV uses the third person feminine pronoun she. But what we have here is a third-person singular verb. That means the pronoun can be he, she, or it, and the context tells you which it is. It grammatically refers back to the last subject. And exactly who or what the last subject is is one of the points of debate. It is singular, so it cannot be they. That leaves us with he, she, or it, and there's no it, there's no neutral subject in sight. So our choices are does it refer to Adam or does it refer to Eve? My understanding is that this refers to Adam. In 214, Adam is the subject of the sentence. His name appears as the noun to which the verb refers. There is no new noun given in 215, so my understanding is the verb ought to refer back to our last subject. Now, you could argue, and some do, that Adam and Eve have both been mentioned in 214, so it's possible the same verb refers back to Eve, but I think the grammar tips a little bit in favor of it referring to Adam. And in the context, that makes a lot more sense. But again, this is one of the points of debate. I think each statement in this little section is a statement about Adam. 213, Adam was formed first, he's the subject. 214, Adam was not deceived, he's the subject, and 215, we would expect Adam to continue being the subject unless there's some reason not to. If he was the subject in the two previous statements, we would expect him to be the subject in the next statement unless Paul gives us a new subject somehow. So I think what he's saying is Adam was formed first, then Eve. That's a shorthand, for Adam was given the role of head in marriage. And of course, you need to read the whole Genesis account to understand that. Adam chose to transgress. Again, you need to know the Genesis story. Eve was deceived and forced a choice on Adam. Adam was the first one to transgress because he made a deliberate conscience choice to disobey God. But even though Adam transgressed, he will be saved through childbearing. Now again, this is a shorthand phrase. Paul expects you to know what happens in Genesis. Adam, and hence all mankind, will be rescued from its condemnation to death, and Eve, the woman, will be the agent through whom that rescue will come. And that is a cryptic statement, I think, that refers back to the story of Genesis, and Paul expects us to know what was promised at the fall. God promised that the woman would bear a seed that would crush the evil one. This is Genesis 3, 14 and 15. The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all the cattle, and more than every beast of the field, on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. And most everybody s understands that Genesis three fifteen as to be the first proclamation of the Messiah. The woman will bear a child, and from the line of those children will come the Messiah who will rescue mankind. So sin entered the world through the deception of the woman, but the line of salvation will also come from a woman. Salvation hinges fully and completely on the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who was born of a woman and lived a sinless life and died in our place. You'll remember that Adam names his wife Eve, which means mother of all life, and that's true in two senses. She will bear the first physical children, but more importantly, she will bear a child, and from that line of faith will come the Messiah who has the power to grant eternal life to those who believed. How will anyone be saved? Well, you could say through childbearing. And that would be a cryptic shorthand way to refer to the Messiah who will die in our place, because that messiah will be born to a woman. So we will all be saved through a child born of the woman. And if they, and now he switches to the third person plural pronoun, continue in faith, love, holiness, and godliness. This theme that he has been talking about since chapter one. So anyone who will be saved will be saved because of the Messiah if they have the saving faith that leads to this godliness. If they continue in faith, love, holiness, and godliness. So if I'm right, the issue in this passage has nothing to do with women teaching in church, women teaching men in general, or leadership roles in the church or in society. Instead, it has everything to do with husbands and wives accepting the authorities God has put in their lives. Just think for a minute about this idea that women can't teach men over a certain age. Let's assume my friend Bob is facing a situation that requires biblical wisdom. And let's assume God has given my husband that wisdom. How could it possibly be right or loving for my husband to withhold that information from him? It wouldn't. So take another step. My friend Bob is facing the same situation that requires biblical wisdom and assume that God has given me a woman that wisdom. How could it possibly be the right or loving thing to do for me to withhold that information from him simply because he's a man and I'm a woman? I don't think it would. Now let's go another step. Say any of us has biblical wisdom. When is Is it ever right to keep that to ourselves? Now, of course, I'm assuming that I don't approach my friend with some kind of arrogant, prideful, condescending attitude, like, how could you be so slow as to not get this? Or to approach him with ridicule or sarcasm or belittling him or disrespecting him in some way. That kind of approach is never right no matter who speaks it. But let's assume that along with biblical wisdom, I have the ability to speak truth with humility. How could it ever be right not to share the light God has given you? Why would gender have anything to do with that? But there is a unique and special covenant relationship within a marriage. And when you're trying to make two lives into one life, and one person will be held accountable for it, in that relationship, it may very well be my place to offer all the biblical wisdom I have with a respectful, gentle, and humble, godly attitude. And then if I fail to persuade, say, okay, we do it your way. All right, let me wrap this up. As I said, my understanding of this has changed. I am still a complimentarian, but I lean toward what some might consider a more egalitarian understanding of this chapter. And I recognize I may be wrong, but this is where I've landed. I would say this whole chapter from verse 1 through verse 15 is is one argument. It's not two unrelated topics stitched together. Paul is talking about the same thing he's been talking about since chapter one. How do you hold on to faith and a good conscience? And here he's applying that to when you're under an authority figure that you don't like. For men, that authority figure is kings and rulers and bureaucrats and politicians. For women, it's their husbands because in Paul's day, 99.9% of women were un were married. But in both cases, Paul wants the same response. Not rage, not rebellion, not resentment, but a quiet, self-controlled trust that God is in control of whatever authority is in your life, whether you'd have picked that authority or not. I think Paul appeals to Genesis and the creation of Adam and Eve as pointing to headship within marriage. He isn't handing us a job description for church leadership. He's talking to us about how we respond to the authority figures in life. And then in the next chapter, he's going to look at people who have authority and talk about how they should handle it and what we should look for in our leaders. If I'm right, this principle doesn't stay inside a marriage or government. It's really about how you respond to any circumstance God has put you in. Maybe you have a boss you didn't choose, or you have parents whose rules you don't get to vote on. Maybe you're sitting in a classroom under a professor whose politics or theology you can't stand. The challenge of this passage is what does it look like to disagree with the person in authority over you? And Paul's urging us not to respond to that authority with anger, rebellion, bitterness, resentment, not to try to undermine our boss or go around her or manipulate until we get our way. The call is to trust God. The call is to bring your best thinking to the table with respect and humility, and then trust that God is in control, even if the decision doesn't go your way. And you trust so much that you can pray for the salvation of the person making your life miserable. That could be your parents, your professor, your boss, your husband, your president. It's all the same test. Do you ultimately trust that God is in control? So if you're a woman, the question this passage puts to you is not, am I allowed to speak, or when am I allowed to speak, or can I explain truth to a man? The question this passage puts to you is how am I speaking? Am I offering wisdom from a place of godliness and trust in God? Or am I rebelling and maneuvering to get your way? And if you're a man, this passage challenges you with the same question. How are you speaking? How are you making decisions? How are you exercising whatever authority you have? And if you're a boss in whatever setting, you need to ask yourself whether you're the kind of boss worth trusting with that wisdom in the first place. Now, as I said, this interpretation is a minority view. I hold it with an open hand. I may be wrong, but I think that reading fits all the words Paul chose and the argument he was already building in the chapter, and what he says elsewhere about husbands and wives best. So test it, wrestle with it, come to your own conclusions, because that's how we figure out what a passage means and not just what it means, but how we know. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word, the podcast that explains not only what a passage means, but also shows you how to figure it out. You'll find the blog version of this episode at wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Timothy 7. You'll find all the episodes in this series on wednesdayintheword.com, as well as all my other Bible study podcasts. There is no charge, no spam, and no ads. If you've been blessed by this podcast, please subscribe wherever you listen so you never miss an episode. But most importantly, tell a friend what you learned and what you learned it. Our theme music is graciously provided by Reggie Coast. You can find all of Reggie's wonderful music on heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the Word.