One more quick comment. One thing that I continue to find fascinating yet saddening at the same time is the fact that, if you look at everything God said to Adam and Eve after their fall, the serpent/Satan is still using the same line… “Did God REALLY say… ‘Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’?” Very interesting how we continue to fall for the same line all these years later. The thing is… it works for him as even apparent by the comments to your article. Thank you.

Wow… after reading all the comments, you definitely have done a great job of hitting some nerves. Although, I may not agree with every assertion that you made but I think you did a wonderful job of keeping a fair and balanced opinion and clearly stating that there are other opinions. I am a little more than just stumped by many of the comments elevating women as equal to men and attempting to squeeze a concentrate of theology from a drip of truth, while ignoring the whole. The Bible is littered with the same premise that you offered. Today’s society or culture definitely does not agree with it but we are not suppose to be establishing our relationship with God based on society or culture. Just as one illustration is, I Corinthians 11:3, 7-9, “3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” This is simply a CLIP of the many things that God speaks concerning the roles of men and women. Notice there is no reference to husbands or wives in the passage, simply men and women. This same message echoes throughout Scripture. Even at the end of the day, Christ, who IS our Head and ultimate example to follow, did not select a single woman as one of His 12 disciples. There is a consistency throughout Scripture along the same lines. This is whether I like it or not… it is the structure that God placed for us to follow; and, just like anything else, to follow His Word with complete surrender, placing our prejudice and desires aside, and taking up His cross.

The issue is woman teaching and having authority. But the kind of authority (authentein) is not the kind any person should have. It is ‘usurping.’ All through the Scripture, believers, including ‘authorities’ so-called in the church, are to submit to one another, defer to one another, consider others more important than themselves, washing one another’s feet, taking the position of a servant, etc. “Usurping” is always ungodly for both genders. I’d love to hear an argument where usurping is a positive thing to do.

Paul ties womanly teaching together with authentein. Women are not to do this combo. Why?

A straightforward reading says there are two conditions: 1) Adam was made first, 2) Eve was deceived.

The second condition cannot count against the woman in Ephesis, unless a case can be made that all women are deceived and therefore all women should not teach their deceptions. This assumption made by many does not work because Eph 5 and James 1 both say that men can be deceived (strongs 538) in the same way. If one could say that no male can be deceived the way Eve was deceived because of his nature, then a real case could be made. Otherwise, we should think something more is going on here in Paul’s letter.

The other case Paul makes is that Adam was created first, then Eve. Why do many automatically assume this means ‘authority’? No where in Eden does it say Adam was Eve’s authority (until after the Fall). He doesn’t even “name” her “Eve” until after the Fall. What is more, the animals came before Adam, but that doesn’t make them his authority. A straightforward reading says Paul is making a statement of order, not a statement of authority. (If we assume order always means ‘authority,’ we should check our assumptions.)

What I see in the text is that more is going on here, otherwise Paul simply doesn’t make sense to any reader, historical or modern (which is why so many theologians differ on this passage) A historical backdrop (which is often ignored by many theologians) is necessary.

What I can guess without doing any research is what women were teaching and usurping authority. These two issues were tied together (in other words, Paul is not saying women cannot teach per se… it’s only this usurping teaching he’s referring to). This needed to be stopped. Paul stops it by making a creation claim and a temptation claim. Then he throws in the childbearing statement. There is so much bending over backwards and stretching from some theologians to make the childbearing statement fit naturally into the context that it should draw suspicion from anyone doing an honest reading.

With further study we discover that Artemis was an integral part of pagan worship in that culture (some theologians hate bringing Artemis into this discussion, but I’ve yet to hear a good reason why not… recent scholarship in this area has been helpful). History has uncovered that her temple, one of the wonders of the ancient world was within walking distance of Paul’s readers. What is more Artemis taught women were spiritually superior to men (this is not controversial), that Artemis was born first (and her twin brother Apollo, second) and this justified women being usurping authorities, and Artemis was the patron saint of childbearing (also not controversial… she was born without causing her mother pain, a study of ancient Artemis and Artemis inscriptions will reveal this).

Suddenly, with that information, we can have a truly natural reading of 1 Tim 2 without stretching contexts and juggling word formations.

In other words, women are not to teach and usurp (because that’s what Artemis’ women do), rather they are to know that in history, Adam was created first (not Aretemis) and it was Eve (yes, the woman) who was spiritually deceived. Women are prone to these weaknesses as much as men are. And, to make sure we have coherence with the passage, we know that it is Jesus (not Artemis) who will preserve, care for, give hope to those in childbirth (because holding onto Artemis is superstitious).

There is no indication here that if a woman behaves in her ‘role’ then she will be delivered from Satan. That explanation on roles is so strange, I find it even difficult to consider. “Save” can often mean physical deliverance as well as spiritual as well as delivering from a bad reputation, etc.

Thus, Paul is writing a polemic against Artemis and how Aretmis worship needs to be rooted out of the Ephesian church (and this goes back to the fancy hair and jewelry earlier in the passage which was also part of Artemis worship.) What is more, many have followed after Artemis, the false god, and that is following after Satan (which explains the Satan passage the original poster mentioned above in 1 Tim 5).

This lends a truly straightforward reading of the text. This text used to really bother me because I thought theologians were being dishonest with their gymnaistics. But as a literary person interested in history with a background in theology and philosophy (I do think integration is a key to truth), I’ve since realized that unless someone can come up with a more natural reading of 1 Timothy 2, this interpretation I’ve come upon is most convincing (though it may require some theologians to update their theological biases).

What is more, Paul seems to be taking women off their pedestals and putting them on the floor with the men rather than putting men on the pedestals (again, a straightforward reading shows this). The Original poster seems to have a preset theological agenda and thus is looking to substantiate difficult verses for his view.

We can do better as we all learn with honesty together. Thanks for reading.

Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 has several problems. You say that Paul is stating that women will be spiritually preserved (from Satan) by adhering to their God-ordained role related to family and the home. Yet if God is giving a promise to women that if they stay within their role as mothers and homemakers, they won’t be spiritually deceived by Satan’s lies, then God has broken that promise as many Christian homemakers have been deceived and have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Bible doesn’t teach us that a role will keep us safe from deception but that sound doctrine will. Another problem is that by giving only women a promise that they will be kept safe from spiritual deception by keeping a role, this interpretation makes God out to be a respecter of persons as God has not given a similar promise to men to keep them safe from spiritual deception if they live out their particular role. Lastly this view implies that women who become Pastors or Bible teachers to men are not kept spiritually safe by God but are left completely exposed to Satan’s deception no matter how much they love God or how much they adhere to sound doctrine. Nowhere does God say that teaching the Bible to men makes a woman an easy prey for Satan. This is a unique interpretation not supported by other scripture. Another unique interpretation is put forth by John MacArthur as he interprets 1 Timothy 2:15 as the saving of women from a second class status by the privilege of bearing children. Cheryl

Thank you for honoring me with this additional response. I notice that, no doubt because of lack of time, you do not comment on the vast majority of the points I made in my previous post. I would still be very interested in your views on these matters.

In the meantime, let me address what you do say in your latest response.

On a preliminary note, you state that there are things that puzzle you about “my view.” I’m sure you realize that this is not just “my view” but the view the church has historically held for two millennia and the view of many, many scholars and Bible-believing Christians today.

As I spent some time reflecting on our different exegetical outcomes, it occurred to me that in large part ours is a disagreement of hermeneutics. In order to illumine Paul’s statements in 1 Tim 2:12-15, you go to the rabbis and their interpretation of Gen 1–3. Eve’s problem was lack of proper instruction. Likewise, the women in Ephesus lacked proper instruction and needed to be taught before they could teach others. The problem with this use of background information, in my view, is that it is used to override the first part of Paul’s explicit rationale given in 1 Tim. 2:13: “Adam was created first, then Eve.” Proper hermeneutic, I believe, gives priority to the rationale explicitly stated in the text. And this rationale is bound up with the sequence in which the first man and the first woman were created, from which Paul deduced an order of primary responsibility in both the home and the church (see also 1 Cor. 11:8). Thus I find you view to be in actual conflict with what the text, and Paul, explicitly state.

You also say you “still don’t see anywhere in Genesis that the creation order mandates female submission.” As I say in a forthcoming dictionary entry on the word “head” in Scripture, the Genesis creation narrative indicates God’s creation first of Adam, then of Eve from and for Adam as his ezer kenegdo (suitable helper, Gen. 2:18, 20). (1) Adam’s creation prior to the woman; (2) his naming of the animals prior to the creation of Eve; (3) his naming of Eve subsequent to God’s creation of her; (4) God’s holding Adam responsible for his and Eve’s sin even though Eve had sinned first; and (5) the woman’s designation as the man’s “suitable helper” all serve as indications of the man’s primary responsibility for humanity before God (his “headship”). And again, as I mentioned in my previous response, the apostle Paul clearly read Genesis as indicating male headship in the church and in the home (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8), and hermeneutically we are bound to the NT interpretation of OT texts where available rather than substituting our own independent reading.

I realize these comments are unlikely to change your mind, but perhaps they serve to further clarify the issue. Of course, I would welcome any additional response you might have.

Cordially,

Andreas Kostenberger