Preaching the Women of the Bible

Description. Take an in-depth look at over forty fierce, faithful, and strong women featured in the Old Testament with Preaching the Women of.
Table of contents

While it may be true that the communication skills f some women preachers are superior to some male preachers, the right to preach isn't determined by superior performance. God can use weak and faltering messengers like Moses Ex. The Hly Spirit's power and blessing are the keys to truly effective preaching, not superior communication skills. Did not God, and has not nature, assigned to man his sphere of labour, 'to til the ground and to dress it? Writing more than years ago, Mrs. Booth addressed a social climate in which women's roles were considerably more narrow than today. Therefore, her comments about women being confined exclusively to domestic tasks, or being restricted in their intellectual and moral pursuits, do no necessarily apply to our modern culture.

However, even in Scripture women aren't confined exclusively to domestic duties. The Bible portrays domestic duties as woman's primary role, but not her only role. It gives examples of godly women whose pursuit went beyond the home--in some cases augmenting her domestic duties e. Similarly, Scripture gives examples of a variety of roles for men beyond farming or shop work e.

We're simply clarifying the parameters within which those capabilities are to function within the local church. Booth's contention that women, like some of their male counterparts, have the right to break out of their original sphere of labor and pursue intellectual and moral interests, relates more to a woman's role in society than to the pulpit. Many intelligent and morally refined men aren't gifted, qualified, or called to preach. The freedom for intellectual and moral pursuits is a separate issue from the right to preach. Booth's question of "why God in this solitary instance has endowed a being with powers which He never intended her to employ" implies that preaching is the only expression available to a woman for the intelligence and communication kills God has given to her.

Clearly that is not the case. Many opportunities are available for godly women to minister their spiritual gifts and natural abilities. Similarly, a woman may have the ability and opportunity to pursue a public preaching ministry, but that doesn't guarantee her God's permission or authority to do so.

God gives every good and perfect gift and has the right to govern them as He pleases. That's why His Word, not natural abilities or opportunities, must be the final authority in this matter. Whiteman, or Miss Marsh with being unwomanly or ambitious. Yet these were all more or less public women, every one of them expounding and exhorting from the Scriptures to mixed companies of men an women. Surely there must be some mistake somewhere, for the Word and the Spirit cannot contradict each other. Either the Word does not condemn women preaching, or these confessedly holy women have been deceived.

Will anyone venture to assert that such women. They most certainly can be mistaken. And if our conclusions are correct, they are mistaken. For example, a man may feel "urged" or "called" by the Holy Spirit to be an elder in a church. Further, he may desire to serve in that capacity.

Although it is a good thing he desires to do 1 Tim. If he doesn't meet those qualification, God has not called him to be an elder, no matter how strongly he may desire to serve. Similarly, if Scripture doesn't permit women to preach, the Holy Spirit will never urge them to do so, regardless of how strongly a woman may feel called to that ministry. Are the Spirit and the Word somehow at odds on this issue? However, being "urged by the Holy Spirit" is very subjective, so if there is a conflict between His apparent urging and what Scripture teaches, those involved must search the Scriptures more diligently to understand God's will more clearly.

And Scripture, which is God's objective and authoritative counsel, must have the final say in the matter. But it is every Christian's responsibility to be a diligent student of the Word and to yield to its authority as he or she gains more understanding. That is especially true of anyone desiring to be a preacher or teacher James 3: Often their reasons are far more subjective e. Sometimes, as in The Salvation Army, the organization's policy that its women officers must preach may be the primary factor. Go does not bless disobedience.

However, the apparent success of a preaching ministry is not the key issue her. Ministering within biblical parameters is the issue, and therein is true success. Even when the Lord is pleased to honor His Word through preaching, that doesn't mean He is pleased with the preacher, or that He is honoring disobedience.

That's clear from Philippians 1: If God can honor His Word through sinful men with impure motives, surely He can honor it through godly women with pure motives. But it is always best to minister within biblical parameters, and never to presume upon God's grace. Equally godly and gifted women as those listed by Mrs. Booth disagree with her position and would never minister from the pulpit. However, God's will in this matter isn't determined by majority vote, personal experience, or subjective call i. It's determined by divine revelation alone.

However, Christians doing something doesn't automatically make it a scriptural thing to do. Even godly Peter was rebuked by Paul for inappropriate behavior Gal. Additionally, questioning a woman's right to preach doesn't automatically impugn the motives of women preachers. Certainly motives are important, but our discussion concerns methods, not motives.

Sometimes Christians with the best of motives will do something unwise or unstudied.

Messages on Women | Desiring God

Questioning their behavior doesn't necessarily question their motives. We hasten to add, however, that motives and overall doctrinal integrity are key factors in evaluating whether or not a preacher's ministry is of the Lord. For example, some of today's most well-known television preachers both male and female proclaim Christ but represent theological systems that are novel or clearly unbiblical. Therefore, even though their audiences may number in the millions, they should not be preaching.

Since there is no distinction between male and female in Christ, neither should there be any distinction in the pulpit or any other ministry for that matter. To prohibit women from preaching is to elevate men over women, thereby violating their equality in Christ. Similarly, the emancipated slave of early America, once clothed with Christ, met all qualifications for any church office--contrary to the convictions of many church teachers of that era.

Product Details

Any dissection of this passage that offers less to women than other categories would suggest a prejudiced exegesis. The passage goes on to affirm the purpose of Christ's coming: Stouffer, "The Ordination of Women: The right to preach and teach is a matter of function, not spiritual equality or inequality. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor fee man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

However, not everyone functions the same within the Body of Christ because the Holy Spirit distributes gifts and responsibilities according to His sovereign will cf. Everyone's role is important, but everyone's role isn't the same. That's the principle Paul argues in 1 Corinthians For example, in the representative quote above, Mr. Stouffer rightly says that Christ came to redeem those who are under the law that all who believe might receive the full rights of sonship Gal. But then he confuses freedom from the Law and equal rights as sons which is the point of the passage with equal roles in society and the church which is not the point of the passage.

Stouffer's comments that "the baptized Greek, clothed with the all-sufficiency of Christ, is as much a son of God as is the previously preferred Jew. Any dissection of this passage that offers less to women than other categories would suggest a prejudiced exegesis" would be correct and more consistent with Paul's point if they read "The baptized Greek, clothed with the all-sufficiency of Christ, is as much a son of God as is the previously preferred Jew. Similarly, the emancipated slave of early America, once clothed with Christ, is as much a son of God as is his Christian master.

An dissection of this passage that offers less to women than other categories would suggest a prejudiced exegesis. It's a functional distinction intended to maintain harmony and order within human institutions such as society and the family. The church is no exception: Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

Therefore, God does not violate spiritual equality or diminish His high calling for woman when He places her under ma's authority in the church. On the contrary, He shelters her by providing an environment in which she can achieve her highest spiritual potential without undue vulnerability. And even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. According to the Apostle Peter, Acts 2: Women did, in fact, prophesy at Pentecost, and Scripture indicates that they will continue to do so throughout the church age.

And Peter says most emphatically, respecting the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 'This is that which is spoken of by the prophet Joel,' etc. Words more explicit, and an application of prophecy more direct than this, does not occur within the range of the New Testament" Booth, Female Ministry, p. Some aspects of Joel's extended prophecy were not fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost e.

Therefore, we believe that Pentecost was only a partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, which will be completed after Israel's future repentance and restoration in connection with the Second Coming of Christ Zech. Pentecost was a prefillment of Joel's prophecy rather than its fulfillment. The Holy Spirit was poured out upon some of the "sons and daughters" of Israel at that time, but a time is coming when He will be poured out upon all of Israel.

We agree that according to Joel's prophecy women as well as men were to prophesy, and that some women did, in fact, prophesy in the early church that's clear from 1 Corinthians Therefore women as well as men will prophesy throughout the church age. However, we do not think that is the case in this context. We agree with those who teach that Joel's prophecy refers to a time "immediately preceding the return of Christ, when all the particulars e.

Peter reminded his hearers that, knowing Joel's prophecy, they should have recognized what they were seeing as a work of the Spirit, not a result of drunkenness" Dr. Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, pp. The Holy Spirit will then be poured out on all classes in Israel who belong to the believing remnant Joel 2: A "prophet" need not be a foreteller of future events, but is "a person gifted for the exposition of divine truth" Harper's Greek Lexicon.

We disagree that "prophesy" in Joel 2: That's the character Paul gives prophecy in 1 Corinthians But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace" emphasis added.

It comprised a predictive element to speak forth in relation to time--prior to an event and a preaching element to speak forth to a group of people, to preach, to proclaim, etc. It was God speaking through individuals for the purpose of edification, exhortation, and consolation 1 Cor. But New Testament prophets always had a predictive element to their ministries even though ever prophecy they delivered wasn't necessarily predictive. Prophets received direct revelation from God; teachers reiterate what has already been revealed.

In his measure the teacher has taken the place of the prophet, cf. The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the massage of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation contained in the Scriptures" W. In chapter two Peter explains the initial prophetic utterances prompted by the coming of the Holy Spirit in partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, but he does not give guidelines for prophetic utterances in the church.

Those are given in the epistles, which are not transitional, but normative and instructional for the church. Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God. Nowhere are Christians instructed to expect, seek, or teach new revelations. However, nothing is said of prophecy or additional revelations. But ever woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, we must explore the biblical data more carefully and allow the clearer statements of Scripture to shed light on the more obscure statements.

Resolving this apparent contradiction is the key to understanding whether or not a woman has the right to preach, and any conclusions we draw must harmonize all three passages. The differences of opinion among commentators will be evident as we discuss each passage.

Main points, representative quotes, and our responses. What He did then, may He not be doing now? We agree that in the early church women were permitted to speak to the edification and comfort of Christians within certain parameters. We disagree that they were permitted to do so from the pulpit or pew in the corporate assembly as we discuss below.

Whatever kind of praying or prophesying men did, women did the same. And Paul never forbade the practice; he merely gave guidelines for its proper exercise. In the Old Testament era, not the woman but the man received the sign of the covenant e. He served as representative for the woman. That is, both man and woman are equal before the Lord. Both men and women know that their prophesying consists of teaching and preaching God's revelation or exhorting and counseling others from the Scriptures" Simon J.

Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: The only difference marked by the Apostle was that the man had his head uncovered, because he was representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered because she was placed by the order of God in subjection to the man; and because it was the custom both among Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews in express law that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. And she must appear like those woman who have their hair shaven off as the punishment of adultery" Dr.

Adam Clarke, cited in Female Ministry, p. In chapter 14 he gives guidelines for the appropriate use of tongues and prophecy when the church gathers for worship, and there forbids women to participate see also 1 Tim. It is likely he was referring to praying or prophesying in places other than the church gathering. That would certainly fit with the very clear directives in 1 Corinthians Nor does it prohibit omen from taking non-leadership roles of praying with believers or for unbelievers.

Likewise there are no prohibitions against teaching children and other women cf. Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip's four daughters Acts Women may pray and prophesy within the boundaries of God's revelation, and with a proper sense of submission. And it is critical that their deportment in so doing reflects God's order. On the contrary, the Scripture teaches other possibilities.

Of special importance is Acts This lead us to the conclusion that Paul in ch. Grosheide, The New International Commentary: Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp So we on our part should not introduce one. By omitting reference to a place Paul says this: Paul is said to contradict himself when he forbids the woman to prophesy in The matter becomes clear when we observe that from In these public assemblies Paul forbids the women, not only to prophesy, but to speak at all, Lenski, The Interpretation of St.

Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. The woman's head covering may have been a cultural symbol of her submission to male headship, but the principle of authority and submission that t symbolizes is universal. While covering the head appears to have been a customary symbol of subordination in Corinthian society, the principle of male headship is not a custom but an established fact of God's order and creation, and it should never be compromised" MacArthur, Different by Design, p. But that position is weak because Paul addresses men as well as women, and there is no reason to suppose that prophesying on the part of men was restricted to praise or song.

Charles Ryrie, believe that "in the light of what he says in He simply acknowledges that these were unauthorized practices" Ryrie Study Bible, p. But if that were the case, it seems that Paul would have stopped the practice all together rather than merely regulating it. That view recognizes a difference between prophecy and preaching or teaching see our discussion on pages above. The teaching forbidden to women is habitual teaching, as suggested by the infinitive in the present tense [lit.

A Response to Biblical Feminism, p. Therefore, the only thing remaining to determine is to what extent women may pray in public worship services. In that regard Paul assigns the leadership role to men cf.

Book Review: Preaching the Women of the Old Testament

And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. The poits listed below represent various views of this passage as it relates to a woman's role in the church. They are not listed in any particular order and may not directly relate to each other. That would contradict 1 Corinthians We agree that Paul doesn't preclude women from ever speaking in the assembly. The context of chapter 14 is tongues and prophecy in the public worship service, which he forbade women to practice, along with asking inappropriate questions as we'll discus in more detail later.

If that's he case, Paul can prohibit women from speaking in the church in this passage without contradicting other passages. In this passage the context of the public church service is clear; that is not the case in the early verses of chapter That's why he specifically says "Let your women keep silence in the churches" KJV, emphasis added. It is at least possible that a similar reason afforded occasion for these admonitions to Timothy [1 Tim.

We cannot accept the idea that even at Corinth the stipulations [Paul gives] were to be applied in every case" J. Glenn Gould, Beacon Bible Commentary: We disagree that Paul is addressing a cultural issue unique to the early church, with no long-term application intended. But newer translations rightly render it, "Let the women keep silent in the churches" emphasis added. Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak.

As in all the congregations of the saints, let the women remain silent in the churches" NIV. The apparent reference of Paul's statement is to Genesis 3: Such decorum is the only one that accords with the will of God. Subordination with equality is what He has prescribed cf.


  1. The ST.TROPEZ Diet?
  2. Headlines.
  3. Keep the Faith;
  4. Baby?
  5. Women, Preaching, the Bible and 1 Timothy 2 | fixinghereyes.

Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, p. Rather he is saying that they should respect their husbands in accordance with the Law. The Corinthian women at worship are not told to be silent in respect to praying, prophesying, and singing psalms and hymns. They are, however, forbidden to speak when the prophecies of their husbands are discussed v. They are asked to observe the creation order recorded in the Law and to honor their husbands.

Telling the women three times to be silent, Paul instructs them to respect their husbands at public worship and to reserve their questions for the privacy of the home. But in the worship service, a wife who questions her husband bout spiritual truths runs the risk of dishonoring him in the presence of the rest of the congregation. To the point, no pastor wishes to be publicly criticized by his wife in a worship service; if she does, she undermines his ministry and is a disgrace o him. Paul wants the women to honor and respect their husbands in harmony with the Scriptures" Simon J.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. Paul's solution was for those who were out of line to ask their husbands or other men in their extended family at home rather than disrupting the service. That being the case, using this word in a prohibition does not imply that absolute silence is enjoined, but rather an improper kind of speaking. It's meaning often is modified by the context--as in this passage. Schleusner's Lexicon lists many meanings, among which are: To direct, command, Acts 3: Now unless Parkhurst is utterly wrong in his Greek.

Paul's fulmination is not launched against speech with premeditation and prudence,but against speech devoid of those qualities. It would be well if all speakers of the male as well as the female sex were obedient to this rule. We disagree that the Greek word lalein, translated "to speak" in verses 34 and 35, refers to imprudent and thoughtless speech. Booth favor the meaning she wishes to assign to lalein, but don't favor the context. Booth cites Parkhurst's claim that lalein means to speak "imprudently and without consideration, and [applies] to one who lets his tongue run but does not speak to the purpose, but says nothing" p.

Deferring to Parkhurst's credibility as a lexicographer, she applies his definition to the text, apparently unaware that within the immediate context of chapter 14 Paul uses lalein with reference to: However, if that is the case, Paul's logic disintegrates and the entire chapter becomes meaningless. If, however, Parkhurst is incorrect as he clearly is in this instance , Mrs. Booth's conclusion that his definition of lalein must apply in verses 34 and 35 is equally unfounded.

Verse 35 prohibits them from asking inappropriate or disruptive questions as some apparently were doing. Rather than simply rebuking them, Paul gives the appropriate alternative: Support is found in v. Various scenario are proposed: If the basic problem is with their 'all speaking in tongues' in some way. The suggestion that the early house churches assumed a synagogue pattern is pure speculation; it seems emote at best" The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.

If, on the other hand, we assume that the Apostle refers in both instances to the same thing, we make him in one page give the most explicit directions of how a thing shall be performed, which in a page or two further on, and writing to the same Church, he expressly forbids being performed at all" Booth, Female Ministry, p. We disagree that Paul has two kinds of speaking in mind in the sense that Mrs. He is, however, referring to two different settings this passage refers to the local assembly, whereas 1 Cor.

Surely, if one verse be so authoritative and binding, the whole chapter is equally so; and therefore, those who insist on a literal application of the words of Paul, under all circumstances and through all time, will be careful to observe the Apostle's order of worship in their own congregations.

But Paul as expressly lays down this order as he does the rule for woman, and he adds, 'The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord' v. We agree that those who insist on a literal application of the prohibitions against women should also apply the rest of the chapter. However, even if some church leaders aren't consistent in their application of the text, that has no bearing on its meaning. In the case of tongues and prophecy however the issues addressed by Paul in chapter 14 , we believe that both gifts were temporary and ceased with the passing of the apostolic era.

Therefore, modern application isn't an issue. As we have already explained, we believe that "prophecy as used by Paul throughout 1 Corinthians had a revelatory element to it [cf. But even if we do limit it in that way, Paul's prohibition against women prophesying in the public assembly till stands. We would expect those people to adhere closely to all of Paul's instructions in chapter But, ironically, most denominations promoting modern tongues and prophecy also promote women in the pulpit, in blatant contradiction of Paul's instructions for them to remain silent.

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam ho was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. The points listed below represent various views of this passage as it relates to a woman's role in the church. Therefore it has nothing whatsoever to do with women speaking in public services.

It stands in connection with precepts respecting her apparel and her domestic position; especially her relation to her husband" Rev. Robinson, cited in Female Ministry, p. It has no reference whatever to good women living in obedience to God and their husbands, or to women sent out to preach the Gospel by the call of the Holy Spirit" Booth, Female Ministry, p.

We disagree with those who teach that the context of 1 Timothy 2: Admittedly, the Greek words translated "men" and "women" in this passage are the same words used elsewhere b Paul and others for "husband" and "wife. On the contrary, in verse eight Pal instructs men to pray, and he uses the Greek word that refers to men in contrast to women, not men in the generic sense, or husbands only aner for males, not anthropos for mankind.

In verse nine he begins a series of instructions for women, which h contrasts to men by use of "likewise" i. Paul changes subjects as he moves from verse eight to verse nine i. Therefore, if Paul's instructions to women in verses refer exclusively to the home, his instructions to men in verse eight must also apply exclusively to the home. But Paul doesn't restrict prayer to the home or to husbands only--neither does he restrict proper clothing and quiet submission to the home or to wives only.

But regardless of the meeting place, [these directives were] to be followed" Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, p. But Paul also names a specific action in prayer: This seems to be a cultural practice. Do we read it as a command for all men everywhere in all times and places when they pray? I do think, however, that he might be trying to make a connection. And the wider point seems obvious: Now, we could argue that in our culture or in the New Testament culture or in general that men tend to be more prone to fighting and getting into argumentative discussions.

But that is certainly not a blanket rule; women can also fight and be argumentative when they want to be. Then Paul turns to women and his first specific command to them is about how they dress. Again, there is an external element but the key is what is going on in their hearts. On the outside this is about dressing modestly, but on the inside it is about living lives that honour Jesus. Here we could ask the same questions as above: Are women by nature more likely to focus on their dress? Something else that can hinder the gospel can be the way women dress.

What is interesting to me here is that I have most often heard this passage applied to speak about sexual modesty. But this is not where Paul goes. His concern is economic modesty. We can read this and go immediately to what is our biggest cultural issue. Perhaps Paul goes to what seems to be theirs. That is what is getting in the way of the gospel. Why would outsiders follow a gospel that leads its followers to showy demonstrations of wealth? So we seem to be able to take these verses and quite comfortably apply them to our culture in a slightly different way.

Twelve Women of the Bible - Hannah with Amena Brown

Is that a valid thing to do? Yes, I think it can be. We can say that Paul is picking a specific issue in his culture but the principle is about heart attitude and what gets in the way of the gospel. This could be applied in our culture around sexual modesty; I think it can be applied in a multitude of ways but this can certainly be one. We understand the key point Paul is making and then we apply it in our context.

But we do not make a blanket rule in our churches that women can never wear gold or braid their hair. We understand that as a particular cultural application of the broader point. We do this all the time when we read the Bible, we know the point being made and we are able to find the cultural application of it. Sometimes it is worth making the same application Paul is making. Perhaps we do need to challenge our people about how much they are spending on clothes or where their clothes are made.

But we also recognise that there are other ways we can apply the principle of not doing things that undermine the gospel and get in the way of our witness to Jesus. Verses Verse 11, then, says that a woman should learn in quietness and submission. The first thing I want to point out is that there is only one imperative in this verse, and indeed in verses as a whole. In general terms, indicative verbs describe what is, infinitive and participial verbs are dependent on other verbs, and imperative verbs express prescriptions or commands.

The single imperative here is about women learning. It was probably unusual in the culture for a woman to learn remember the Mary and Martha story. Then he says they are to learn in two ways: The latter is translated just a few verses later 1 Tim 3: Certainly we can do that; words can mean more than one thing and so we need to look at the context in which they are being used to understand their nuance. But it may also suggest that translations have been influenced by cultural assumptions or traditions as well.

Verse 2 seems to be a kind of shorthand for lives of being who we are called to be, living out and proclaiming the gospel. It is about the attitude towards learning — not jumping up and making a fuss, or asserting their authority, but learning in order to obey, live out, and pass on what is learned. If currently only men teach, Paul is not saying that the current order is reversed so that only women teach and rule over men. This is certainly not the only way of translating this, but the idea resonates with me in making sense of the passage as a whole.

This is an unusual word, not just about having authority but taking or usurping it. It thus seems to have connotations of women taking over, which often seems to be a fear that has been held in various contexts: For followers of Jesus it is never about grasping for position or authority or trying to be top dog; it is always about submission to, and the priority of, the gospel.

It does not seem that he is saying that women should never teach, and of course if he was, then he would seem to be contradicting his own practice, which raises much bigger hermeneutic issues.

There are many different ways of dealing with this verse. This is where I land but I recognise others draw analogies, for example, to the commands about men lifting hands and women not wearing gold; that this is a cultural application of a principle given the context at Ephesus and how women teaching might have meant the gospel would not be heard. Paul goes on, saying that Adam was formed first and Adam was not the one deceived. He appeals to the story in Genesis 2 by way of explaining his point. The traditional way of interpreting this has been to say that Paul is appealing to creation and the created order.

That is, that the basis of why men should preach and women should not is the way God created the world to be and that is therefore the end of the discussion. I find verse 14 quite interesting, however, for this interpretation because Paul makes a distinction between Adam and Eve not just in the order they were created, but in the order they sinned. And appealing to the fall as the basis for the way things should be seems theologically untenable. I have to wrestle with why Paul would use the fall as a basis for his theology.

The question is then: In the Genesis 2 story, they both eat the fruit and they are both held responsible. But there is a difference in the story in how this happens. The point Paul seems to be making is that Eve was deceived, that is, tricked. This is not to say one of these is worse than the other. How then is it that Eve could be deceived? This goes back to who was formed first, as Paul has just noted. Reading the story, Adam was formed first.

Then God gave him some instructions including not to eat from the tree. And then Eve was created. So why was Eve able to be deceived? Adam had been taught and chose to disobey. Eve had not been taught and was deceived. The point Paul seems to be making is that those who have not been taught and have not learned can be deceived. We then come to verse 15, probably the most difficult to interpret of the whole chapter. How does this logically follow? Two things are worth noting. There is no noun here. The feminine pronoun is found within the verb in Greek, so this is a better translation as it leaves the subject both singular and as a pronoun.

We then need to look for the antecedent, the noun referred to here. Grammatically it seems better to see this as referring to her. She Eve will be saved. My basic understanding of the gospel says that there is only one way we are saved and that is through faith in Jesus. A Sunday School child can tell me that if we are talking about being saved, the answer must be Jesus! So, how could this verse possibly be about Jesus? There is of course a child born of Eve mentioned throughout the Scriptures who saves people.

His name is Jesus. He is reminding us that despite her deception and sin, God promises Eve a child who will defeat Satan and overcome the sin. He is thus using the idea of a child born to Eve to talk about Jesus. The final part of the verse is then classic Paul: Salvation is from God but we are called to respond to it faithfully. So my translation of 1 Timothy 2: Not that I am now commanding women to teach or assert authority over men, but to be in quiet holiness. For Adam was created first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived into disobedience.

But she will be saved through the child born, if they continue in faith, peace and holiness with self-control. It is also one that has been translated and taught based on various assumptions that are worth at least taking a second look at. It is therefore particularly unhelpful to use it as a lens through which to read the rest of Scripture.

Conclusions A similar exercise could be undertaken with respect to 1 Corinthians His key point is not about teaching and authority but about order in the church so that the gospel is proclaimed and heard. There are also plenty of questions worth raising about the cultural background of the passages. Personally, I find it intriguing to consider the kind of space the church was meeting in. I cannot read my own cultural assumptions of a large meeting hall into the text. What difference might this make to how we read these verses? We need to take time to wrestle with what it looks like to faithfully interpret texts like this, both on their own terms and in the wider context of the Scriptures and the vision of the kingdom and new creation the gospel calls us to live out.

My secondary question with these texts is whether hermeneutics is the only thing that has been driving how they have been read. In some cases, our own cultural and experiential issues can actually be more significant challenges. We are often driven by what we are used to, comfortable with, culturally expect, and assume.