The Strange Case of 1 Timothy 2

[Leat]

Ok, this debate is where I like it. Adam & Eve thing here. Going back to original sin, we see that Eve was deceived by the devil, and she took part of the fruit of knowledge. THEN, what have you, ADAM took part in the fruit. BUT WAIT!!! Was he not ALSO deceived? It says that Eve brought a piece of fruit for him, and he ate. THIS IS WHAT UPSETS ME!! The mans fault is that he took without asking her where the fruit came from, but she gave to him the fruit which she ate.

If our wife brings us food, we 9/10 are grateful for the fact we have food for us, that we didn't have to prepare ourselves. Why would we question our faithful wives? So you see? Women must let the Men lead, it is BIBLICAL! And not just on Timothy's and Paul's account.

But my thing is, THEN what about people like Joyce Meyer? God uses everyone to bring glory to Himself. So why NOT a woman?

In the end, I see it like this: God will appoint leaders to whom He wants to lead, whether man or woman. So our dispute should not be of women or men as leaders, but let those who walk by Spirit follow Biblical Truth, and lay aside PERSONAL SELFISH DESIRES so that we can die to the flesh.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Why did Jehovah not want them to eat of the tree of knowledge and become like him? The serpent said they would become wise. Jehovah said they would die. Which one happened? Why did it seem like God feared them when they gained knowledge and wanted to kick them out before the could eat of the tree of life and become immortal? Christians have been asking these questions for centuries. Take this early gnostic scripture:

"What kind of God is this? First, he envied Adam that should not eat from the tree of knowledge... And secondly he said "Adam, where are you?" And God does not have foreknowledge, since he did not know this from the beginning. And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely he has shown himself to be a malicious envier. And what kind of God is this? Great is the blindness of those who read and they did not know it."

 

[Leat]

It is written: "And they heard nearby The Lord God WALKING in the garden..."

This means he was of flesh when in the garden. He made himself of flesh, but different to our flesh in terms of sinful nature. Just as Jesus came in the flesh, but is without sin.

To suggest that God is NOT omnipotent and omnipowerful, contradicts scripture.

And to suggest that God was FEARFUL of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of life is also against scripture. For God IS THE LORD GOD, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA! And to suggest that He feared HIS creation, is to suggest that He cannot destroy what His creation. Which would defy His entire being.

Was Lucifer, the angel of light, who opposed God, cast OUT OF HEAVEN BY GOD?! And Lucifer has greater power than we do has humans. We have NO power and NO authority over anything, only THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD do we have power, and that power is not our own.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Indeed. Thank you for that perspective. However, I hope you can appreciate that there is not anything indicating that is how we must read the context of the letter, and I believe I have presented sufficient evidence that lends itself to a different approach to the letter. Even you recognize that the subjects of the letter change, and so the urge given in the context of those different subject could potentially only apply to those subjects.

It is very difficult when an author uses vague language like "these things." We can't fully know, without asking him, what he actually meant the scope of the statement to include. However, I have no agenda to impose my perspective on anyone else. As far as my congregation and I understand this passage, it does not justify discrimination based on gender, and so we do not interpret it that way. We believe with the utmost confidence that our leading ladies are an honor and a blessing to God and to our church family.

I am curious, though, how you apply 1 Timothy 4:4-5 to the context of chapter 2? It seems as though if one rejects the leadership of a qualified woman, he or she must disobey the explicit instruction given here. I'd be interested to read your perspective on that.

I didn't comment on 1 Timothy 4:4-5 on the context of chapter 2. Do you mean how I applied 1 Timothy 4:6-11 to Chapters 2 and 3? If that's the question you mean then this is how I think of it:

This letter was given to Timothy. And what Paul said were instructions to Timothy and the church (not saying that Timothy was not part of the church but the separation was there that their were instructions for Timothy and those in the church). In Chapter 2 Paul spoke about prayer, modest clothing, women being silent and not having authority. In Chapter 3 he gave the qualifications of overseers/elders and deacons and in 3:15 he says

But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

I can't assume those instructions were for Timothy only because Paul gave instructions for women and Timothy is not a woman. Therefore Timothy was to teach the church of these things that Paul wrote to him.

In Chapter 4, Paul speaks about the latter days and again instruct Timothy to "teach and command". Paul wrote on many different subjects but the changing of the subjects doesn't change the fact that he instructed Timothy to teach them. Those subjects were the very things that Timothy were to teach them.

 

[Rastamanrebel92]

Basically what it comes down to here is that god asking where adam was is simply a test of adams worthiness. Not because he didn't really know where he was. By him asking does not make his omni-potent structure false. For instance, if someone lied about something and you knew it. But they didnt know you knew. When you hung around that person you would test them to see if they would come forth with honesty about their lying. And by being around that person you would be able to deduce an educated guess upon their worthiness based upon them coming forth to you honestly. It is the same situation here. God knew where adam was. he just called unto him to see if adam would be worthy and come forth and admit what had taken place. And after all of this didn't God approach adam and eve? And after this the serpent is casted into hell and so on. Now secondly, the part of god envying. God did not envy out of haste. But surely because he wanted no corruption or abominations within his foundation. For instance, if you worked hard at perfecting something and gaining a stable foundation. Would you want anything corruptible coming in and making your foundation shaky. Certainly not. Therefore that is why God was the way he was about adam and eve eating of the tree. And the serpent knew what he was doing as well. Trying to corrupt the fruit of the land. God did nothing out of haste or maliciousness. Simply out of love and care for his people and the futures to come. Why let abominations corrupt a beginning foundation and for the people and foundation to be corruptible there on out in the future. I surely would cast out unrighteousness trying to make I and I foundation shaky. For you my brother

 

[Leat]

Amen Rasta My Brotha!

 

[cubinity]

I didn't comment on 1 Timothy 4:4-5 on the context of chapter 2. Do you mean how I applied 1 Timothy 4:6-11 to Chapters 2 and 3? If that's the question you mean then this is how I think of it:

This letter was given to Timothy. And what Paul said were instructions to Timothy and the church (not saying that Timothy was not part of the church but the separation was there that their were instructions for Timothy and those in the church). In Chapter 2 Paul spoke about prayer, modest clothing, women being silent and not having authority. In Chapter 3 he gave the qualifications of overseers/elders and deacons and in 3:15 he says

But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

I can't assume those instructions were for Timothy only because Paul gave instructions for women and Timothy is not a woman. Therefore Timothy was to teach the church of these things that Paul wrote to him.

In Chapter 4, Paul speaks about the latter days and again instruct Timothy to "teach and command". Paul wrote on many different subjects but the changing of the subjects doesn't change the fact that he instructed Timothy to teach them. Those subjects were the very things that Timothy were to teach them.

I guess the part where we really disagree about what we are reading is that you summarize 1 Timothy 2 as, "Paul spoke about prayer, modest clothing, women being silent and not having authority." I would summarize it as Paul spoke about being peaceful, praying positively for even those you don't like very much, and taking responsibility to protect the community from unnecessary distractions, angry disputes, and misguided leadership.

In my reading, Paul is saying that one of the ways he personally protects the community from unnecessary distractions is by not letting women step over men. However, I still fail to see any point where context guides me to read this particular point as an instruction of how Paul believes all churches, or even Tim's church, must be organized. It is, as I understand it, simply presented as a practical example of how he has handled this particular issue of converted priestesses from pagan cults.

Yes, in chapter 3 he calls his previous section "these instructions," but I clearly see how the particular structure of this letter contextualizes the scope of "these" to refer to the specific instructions he was just communicating, namely how to recognize and appoint elders and deacons.

And, yes, in chapter 4 he tells Tim to command and teach "these thing," but again I see how the structure of the letter lends itself to the understanding that "these" specifically applies to the notion that false teachers are unnecessarily restrictive, and that everything God created is good, etc.

Again, I respect that you disagree, but I feel no compulsion from the evidence in the text to change how I am interpreting this letter. I appreciate that you are no doubt in the same position, certainly convinced of your interpretation, and all I can do is support your decision and pray lovingly that God honors both interpretations as genuine attempts to follow the example He has provided in the Scriptures.

 

[Ringo84]

~ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

To be quite frank, I think this passage is full of bad logic.

If we are to decide hierarchy by the order of creation, why is it that animals don't reign over mankind? After all, Genesis states that they were created before man.

Also, I have never understood why some Christians think that Eve alone is at fault for what happened in the Garden.

Assuming that the Garden of Eden story is historical, both Adam and Eve sinned. Adam didn't have to take the proffered apple, but he did. That makes him as guilty as Eve.

Blaming ALL of womankind - and disallowing them to preach - based on the actions of one woman who supposedly lived countless years ago is illogical. It would be like saying I am a racist because two hundred years ago, a distant relation of mine owned a slave.

I have never heard any good arguments for keeping women out of the pulpit - including from 1 Timothy 2.
Ringo

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I guess the part where we really disagree about what we are reading is that you summarize 1 Timothy 2 as, "Paul spoke about prayer, modest clothing, women being silent and not having authority." I would summarize it as Paul spoke about being peaceful, praying positively for even those you don't like very much, and taking responsibility to protect the community from unnecessary distractions, angry disputes, and misguided leadership.

In my reading, Paul is saying that one of the ways he personally protects the community from unnecessary distractions is by not letting women step over men. However, I still fail to see any point where context guides me to read this particular point as an instruction of how Paul believes all churches, or even Tim's church, must be organized. It is, as I understand it, simply presented as a practical example of how he has handled this particular issue of converted priestesses from pagan cults.

Yes, in chapter 3 he calls his previous section "these instructions," but I clearly see how the particular structure of this letter contextualizes the scope of "these" to refer to the specific instructions he was just communicating, namely how to recognize and appoint elders and deacons.

And, yes, in chapter 4 he tells Tim to command and teach "these thing," but again I see how the structure of the letter lends itself to the understanding that "these" specifically applies to the notion that false teachers are unnecessarily restrictive, and that everything God created is good, etc.

Again, I respect that you disagree, but I feel no compulsion from the evidence in the text to change how I am interpreting this letter. I appreciate that you are no doubt in the same position, certainly convinced of your interpretation, and all I can do is support your decision and pray lovingly that God honors both interpretations as genuine attempts to follow the example He has provided in the Scriptures.

I didn't make a comment about Paul saying that women to be silent in church in this thread. But anyway, to me it's a mute point, he said the same thing to the church at Corinth that women are to be silent in church. I think he's setting a principle which is commanded by God anyways.

1 Corinthians 14:33-37
33For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

36Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.​

If that is what the Lord requires, I will happily follow.

 

[Anoetos]

Ringo, I am not aware of ANY Christians who hold Eve alone responsible for the fall.

It doesn't mean there aren't any, it just means you know something I don't. I would really appreciate it if you could help me out here.

 

[from scratch]

Ok, this debate is where I like it. Adam & Eve thing here. Going back to original sin, we see that Eve was deceived by the devil, and she took part of the fruit of knowledge. THEN, what have you, ADAM took part in the fruit. BUT WAIT!!! Was he not ALSO deceived? It says that Eve brought a piece of fruit for him, and he ate. THIS IS WHAT UPSETS ME!! The mans fault is that he took without asking her where the fruit came from, but she gave to him the fruit which she ate.

If our wife brings us food, we 9/10 are grateful for the fact we have food for us, that we didn't have to prepare ourselves. Why would we question our faithful wives? So you see? Women must let the Men lead, it is BIBLICAL! And not just on Timothy's and Paul's account.

But my thing is, THEN what about people like Joyce Meyer? God uses everyone to bring glory to Himself. So why NOT a woman?

In the end, I see it like this: God will appoint leaders to whom He wants to lead, whether man or woman. So our dispute should not be of women or men as leaders, but let those who walk by Spirit follow Biblical Truth, and lay aside PERSONAL SELFISH DESIRES so that we can die to the flesh.

Poor Adam. I'm sure glad I'm not in his shoes. I certianly can identify with his problem. I gotta say he had a tough decision to make and made the wrong one or did he?

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo, I am not aware of ANY Christians who hold Eve alone responsible for the fall.

I can't cite chapter and verse, but I seem to recall participating in this debate and seeing some Christians act as though everything that happened in the Garden was Eve's fault.
Ringo

 

[Anoetos]

I think it may have been foundational to a number of medieval notions about women, but I am not aware of any churches who blame Eve alone for sin and death.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Basically what it comes down to here is that god asking where adam was is simply a test of adams worthiness.

Wouldn't God know what the results of the "test" would be before it even happened? Did he need to test him to find that out? If not what was the purpose?

When you hung around that person you would test them to see if they would come forth with honesty about their lying.

Yes, because I'm not all knowing. They may or may not come clean and I have no idea one way or the other until I put them to the test. Apparently this was the case here as well.

Now secondly, the part of god envying. God did not envy out of haste. But surely because he wanted no corruption or abominations within his foundation.

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Gen 3:22

Man has become like one of us? Why would that be bad unless maybe this god/s is:

1. jealous of them
or
2. was evil himself - in other words being like this god (or gods because the plural is used) is evil because this god is evil

For instance, if you worked hard at perfecting something and gaining a stable foundation. Would you want anything corruptible coming in and making your foundation shaky.

If I was all powerful it wouldn't be a problem. I would simply prevent anything from coming in and making the foundation shaky. Apparently he couldn't do that though? When man became like "one of us" those who make up that "us" cast them out so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life and become even greater.

And the serpent knew what he was doing as well.

The serpent told the truth. They ate and became like god just like he said. Even the the book of Genesis admits that by saying he became like one of us. The creator gods on the other hand said Adam would die. Instead of dying they lived for hundreds of more years. The only negative result seems to come from the actions of that god/s and not from the fruit of knowledge itself.