Pastoral Epistles - Lesson 7

Pastoral Epistles

Dr. Bill Mounce

nt630-07

1 Timothy 2:14–15

Lesson Transcript

 

I was thinking over lunch, the one quick story and as a quick story I forgot to share is, you know, I don't know if many people think of if I ever were to change my mind, this is why I would change it. Maybe there's another a better way to say that. And that is the strongest argument that is counter to mine is Gordon vs where and Gordon's position is that in the first Century Vision Church there was significant limitations on what women could do. Um, but the overall argument is that the pastors are ad hoc, they're only dealing with local issues. And once you get out of the vision situation and um, you get outside of the kinds of problems that you have an emphasis, then the teachings of emphasis no longer apply. Um, I don't agree with the argument because of the verse 13, but I would say that I think that's the strongest counterargument there is. And something that brought it home to me recently was we went to China and I taught at a seminary in Hong Kong, and then I traveled with an organization meeting pastors and all kinds of interesting stuff for about two weeks after that. You know, the Chinese church is 80% female and many of the leaders are women. And so you just look at it and you go, God doesn't tend to bless sin or whatever you want to call it, you know, And there's obviously some significant blessing going on. And and it's kind of weird for reform guy to be using what is a predominantly Wesleyan argument, and that is the argument from experience. But somewhere along the line, you got a you got a someone whose theology you have to allow for for this incredible.

 

Amount of good work that's being done by women in the Chinese church. I read through the statements here first. Timothy Super seen the kind of stuff that says, you know, a lot of the days of what the spirit was prophesied, both men and women prophesied that there's a super severe possibility. Well, several answers to that is one was the latter time started in Acts two and this is written later. So it's not like, yeah, I mean the timing is this is after the spirit's been poured out on sons and daughters. The the other argument is that, yes, the spirits poured out on men and women equally alike, but that's not necessarily the same thing as who runs the church. Um, yes. Galatians in Christ, there's neither male or female slave nor free. That is, there's absolutely true. But that it doesn't necessarily follow that that is reflected in the structure of the church. And that's how the argument goes. Um, there is my wife is every bit as much in the image of God as I am. There is when it comes to issues of salvation, which is what Paul is talking about in Galatians. There is zero difference between Robyn and me and how we're saved and how we live our lives. But that doesn't mean that in terms of the organization of the church, that that principle necessarily applies. You also in theology, you tend to draw theology more from, um, when the issue is specifically addressed rather than by implication or, and that may not be the right word, but you have general truths expressed in Galatians and here you have Paul dealing with how do you run the church. This, these passages necessarily. Supersede. In this immediate context, what the general principles may or may not be saying.

 

I mean, that's how the argument goes. So, yeah, there's you know, it's it's the old argument about prophets and priests that, um, prophets are there are. There are female prophets all the way to the New Testament. Right. Um, but that's different then than being part of the official structure and how God wants to structure that. Um. There's real struggle. Yours verse 13. I mean, everything. Really? Really. So many things hinged on verse 13. So but I just say I was sitting in China and it was really interesting because I heard stories about missionaries in China and you see these massive amounts of people that are not going to heaven. And we heard stories about missionaries that went over that became Universalists. I mean, they they just couldn't. They couldn't grasp the fact that that many people were going to hell. And so, I mean, there's just something about the church in China that kind of makes you kind of reassess certain things. And when you see what appears to be healthy churches and often led by women, you go. What's that all about? Is this a Deborah Barrack thing where God has a preferred way to do things? He goes to Barrick. Barrick won't lead the people. So I guess, fine, I'll go get a woman to do it. And the one female judge we have is Deborah, right? I mean, is that part of what we should be thinking of? Now, those are hard questions. I was going to say that David and I both were very similar in that we both work at seminaries that are primarily African American. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. This is about Apex in Durham. Might as do like Charlotte. And I would say that we probably have more female students than male students, and we have a lot of them who are female.

 

Mm hmm. Yeah, very strong. Leaders on this issue. But I have found that unless you want to alienate your. Student bodies basically kind of downplay it. And it works in different ways and. Yeah. I'm glad they're here because I have a job, and, uh, you know, you wonder about it. You know, why isn't God raising up men? Yeah, Or, you know, or he is raising men, and they're going off and being lawyers and whatnot. I just. I just. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, I teach at a school in Tacoma, this predominantly African American, and so I've been learning about that particular culture, and it's different. A good example is Baptist, and we we had this long discussion of baptism once and and they were trying to say that the one guy was trying to save the Bible, the you know, the Bible says that only the pastor can baptize. Well, that's just part of the tradition. And it was all but it was I mean, it was really firm, but it was just a firm part of their tradition that they had a hard trouble seeing around it. So in one sense, it's the same thing, that it's just part of that particular culture. So. Anyway. I just. I just wanted to. I mean, it just kind of made me honestly try to look back and think through. And I'm not. I haven't changed my mind. But I do think that Gordon's argument is the strongest counter argument that I've read, and it helps me handle China. Uh, someone had a hand. It just seems to me a lot of the struggle we're having with this is because we're a little confused, typically in our physiology. You don't really. Really. I mean, I very. You know, if you don't tell me.

 

Don't do the job. In all cases of defining the office, defining roles, things like that. Mm hmm. You're going to have to really define role for office. Things like. It turns out that talk of the office that the person is holding and that you have that is a little easier to say, okay, well, this office is the authority this office is teaching. Mm hmm. What are the qualifications to the offices? Is. Male. And then I think you kind of mentioned earlier, that kind of puts it in the same well, males and females that are not in that office are not able to right the party and things like that as well. Qualifications for the office. Yeah, it's an older book, by the way. I should have mentioned it, but the book that Crossway published by Graham and Piper, it's a really good book and it's I think it's fair and there's some very, very strong articles in it. It's what's it called? What's their book called? Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This is one of the first books that Crossway ever published outside of their attract company. And this is one of the first books I think they published. But it's it's really good. The IVP came out with the book on the egalitarian side about two years, three years ago, maybe four or five now. I can't think of the name of it, but it uh. So how can I recommend a book I can't think of the name of, but it's, it's an IVP book and it appears to have been a pretty fair presentation, the egalitarian position. I will try to remember to look it up and give it the name later it'll be linked to on the website. Um, but there's, there is some good stuff on the complimentary inside.

 

Well I giving the in the commentary some of my favorite books. Tom Schreiner and a bunch of his buddies wrote a book called First Timothy two or the first Timothy 212 was one of the two and it's a very good dealing with the text and working through the issues. So there's some really good books, but they're cross-referenced in the commentary and you can see them the counsel for biblical men, that a woman that also has a website. Yeah, that has a lot of the links to those articles. Yeah. Council of Biblical Manhood Womanhood was started by Wayne and his group, and it's been kind of connected to Southern Seminary. Uh, but it's good resources there, and there's, there's organizations on the egalitarian side too. So it's a companion volume to where they answer the question. Yeah, yeah. And it was almost as big as the original book wasn't. Yeah, I've got that one. So anyway, there's some good research out there. So there I mean, there's no lack. They keep writing more books. I think the complimentary. It's fun. I got tired of writing books and the egalitarians have it. They just seem to keep writing. Phil Page came out with another book through Zondervan, but lots of lots of stuff that you can read. But anyway, hopefully the commentary will give you the, the breadth of of what you need to be looking at with some good cross-references. So, okay, so we got back, we had the initial statement of verses 11 and 12. We have reason number one, or at least a reason in verse 13, and then you get diverse 14 and actually treat 14 and 15 as this is a similar passage, Paul gets into verses 14 and 15 and. Uh, these are difficult.

 

15 has always been viewed as one of the strangest verses in Scripture. I think it's actually not that difficult to understand. Verse 14 is heart. Verse verse 14 is the only verse in the commentary where I didn't come to a conclusion. I don't know if you picked it up or not, but it was just the three is it's a hard, hard verse, but in a very general stroke, verses 14 and 15 depict they move from Eve's. They look at Eve's failure in Genesis three and they tie that it it's tied into the Ephesians when we fashion women and why they can't be in leadership. So there's a tie between even what she did in Genesis three and the Ephesians women in Paul's day, two basic positions on it. One is that traditionally this has been viewed as the second reason. Right. It's been viewed as the second reason for why Paul places a limitation on the role of women. Oh, well. And it it is as a reason. Number two, it says something about women in general. That's the just been the historical position on on this verse and. Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. And historically the verse has been read to say that just as Eve was the only one deceived. So women in general are more easily deceived, the men. And so they should not be elders. Historical understanding of the verse. Of course, that's about as politically correct as endorsing slavery in this day and age. But it's it's been the historical position on this verse. I like the way that Piper says it. It's that men and women are equal but different in their weaknesses. We tend to think of these things as what I get to do in the power I get to have and the authority I get to have.

 

And and Piper says, no, we're we're equal, in essence, but we're different in how we're weak. Um. I'm uncomfortable with this verse with that interpretation, and I don't know if I'm bending to social pressure or if I'm looking at my daughter and it's affecting me. I'm just uncomfortable making an ontological statement about all women. That women are more easily deceived than men. It's in their nature to be deceived. And therefore they can't be elders. It's just I'm uncomfortable with it. I'd just be straight up. It's. It's not not been my experience. I'm just uncomfortable also with that kind of generalization. Now, if that's what Paul's saying, that I have to learn to be comfortable with it. Okay, I can do that. It's interesting that Doug Mood was also uncomfortable with it. And when he first started writing on these topics, he he thought the first 14 said something ontologically about the essence of women and he changed his position. And it takes almost that a real man. Let me see if I can figure another way to say it. It takes a strong person, a strong conviction in writing to say I've changed my mind. Not many commentators, writers, commentary writers do that. He changed his mind to the second position. And the second position of verse 14 is that it's an illustration. Verse 13 is a reason, but verse 14 is an illustration. And what it's an illustration of is what happens when God's designed for males ship male headship is not followed. So he lays out male headship in verse 13 and then as he's in. Genesis, to his mind, moves to Genesis three and the mess that happened when there wasn't male headship. And then how that trickles down through the centuries to first century.

 

Ephesus Because what happens in Genesis? What happens? What happened in Genesis three? I remember the first time I heard about this was reading it Larry Crab's book. I'm surprised I didn't see it before. And I'm a little frustrated that it took a psychologist to point something out energetically to me in Genesis chapter three. Where's Adam? The way. What? I think he's right next to Eve. It's because when she eats, she hands it to him. Same situation, Same event. And what lyric do point lyric grabs making in his book is that Adam stood there and refused to lead his family. He knew exactly what was going on. His wife got tricked. And as Paul says, right, he was deceived. Adam wasn't deceived. Adam knew exactly what was going on, and he kept his mouth shut. Eve was tricked by the snake. And so what you have is is a of a failure to communicate. You have a you have a failure to Adam do what Adam supposed to be doing. He was formed first. He was he was in this hierarchical relationship with his wife, and he refused to do what he had been created to do. And look the mess that followed. So the second position is that first 14 gives an illustration of what happens when verse 13 isn't followed. Um, but, yeah, I, I often like to think of how many times Adam has had to apologize in heaven. I mean, I'm assuming Adam's in heaven. I think it's a pretty safe bet. Oh, you're Adam. You what? You couldn't. You couldn't say no. You couldn't take your wife away and talk about it. You all pain in this world is because you kept your mouth shut. I'm sorry. Yes, yes, I'm sorry.

 

I mean, I think Adam just probably had apologized a few billion times by now. Two people who find him in heaven. Uh, but anyway, uh, the the consequence of we have male headship in 13, and he says, Look what happens at Adam wasn't deceived. He knew what was going on. Eve was deceived. And look at the mess that happened when Adam didn't do what he was supposed to do. She became a transgressor. And then what happens in 15 is that Paul has to make a somewhat uncomfortable jump. He has to move from the singular eve to the plural of Asian women. He has to move from the Garden of Eden to his present, and he has to move from Eve being a transgressor to the effusion, women able to be saved. So there's actually three bridges he's having to cross and he does it very quickly and in a very confusing way. And so the text says and yet she. Which is even some I think I remember reading some translations that make that in the plural, thinking of the Asian women. And certainly there's a there's the movement from the singular, even the past, to the plural women in the efficient present. But it's yet she will be saved, even though Eve was a transgressor and the effects of that ripple down through humanity. Yet Eve is going to be saved. And by implication, the fusion women are going to be saved as well. In other words, Eve's sin and the consequence, or Eve's deception and the consequence of that deception did not make it such that women can ever be saved, but they can be saved. So he makes that very awkward adjustment. Yet she will. And the vision women will be saved.

 

Okay. That makes sense. That part. Okay. And yet she's going to be saved through child bearing, which means that no single gal's going to heaven. No, again, you got to take this. You got to push it to its historical context. We're going to learn in chapter four that the false teachers were saying you couldn't marry. And. But this is me being interpretive. Um, the the you couldn't get married. And if they were prohibiting marriage, they most certainly were prohibiting childbearing. And so the idea is you're going to be saved, but how are you going to work out that salvation? I mean, the the initial printing of the Navy in 74 had she will be kept safe through childbearing, which is one of the options. But I think it just is a terrible option. Um, personal opinion because too many godly women die in childbirth. I mean, you just can't lie is that verse means that a godly woman is going to be kept safe through the process of bearing children. You've got all kinds of other problems. So I think this the South, the Soso here is not kept safe. It is dealing with salvation. The context is one of transgression. Um, and she's going to be kept safe. She's going to be saved. But how do you work out that salvation Philippians to work out, right? How do you how, how is she going to work out that salvation? She's in a historical context where the false teachers are saying, don't get married, don't have children, do this, don't do that. And I think what Paula, sing again in a very abbreviated fashion and that's what makes it so difficult, is that he's saying the women can be saved, that the effects of Eve's sin, is it permanent? But they are going to work out their salvation.

 

The implications of the salvation, not by. Doing the things the false teachers are saying, but they're going to work it out in other ways. One example of which is having children. Don't listen to the false teachers when they say don't get married, don't have children, but rather work out your salvation among other ways and have children. It's a good thing. It's for God. Does one of the things that God designed you for so you have the kept safe interpretation. You have the work out your salvation through bearing children. There is a third interpretation that was around a long time ago and is 100 years ago and hasn't gained hardly any traction to recently. I've seen it a few more times and that is, instead of translating it child bearing translated to child birth, meaning Jesus, but that she will be saved through. A child born to a woman, namely Jesus. The reason it hasn't generally picked up Trent's traction is that it's really hard to make the word say childbirth. The etymological as you look at the form of the word. It refers to the action of something, and so would be the action of having children. Um, but I just, I saw in Philippines I understood or I Philippines new book. He takes a position. It's the childbirth. Um. But it's the child bearing. It's the act of child bearing. The problem is, what can the Greek word mean? And from what I've read, it can't mean the child birth. It has to be a process. It has to be the process of burying children in the context of the line. You know, part of the genesis of the. Woman Child bearing. Child bearing child bearing all the way through things is all I know for some very nice biblical theology.

 

Yeah. So. Yeah. Well, but again, in Genesis three though, you have the crushing the head, which was by Jesus. And so I mean you that would like to get to. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. I mean, I kind of like the idea of the childbirth is because it takes it gets rid of some of the problems. But I just don't see in the Greek how the word can mean that that's my problem. I just want you to be aware that that was one of the interpretations of the context, though. You know, it's talking about Adam and Eve. It's taking money out of me, but it's not what the word means. And I keep coming back to it. It's not what the word means. So we can look at context. It's not what the word means. I mean, my interpretation of the word means the word is formed etymological in a way that you form Greek words to describe the process of something, not the event, the process. And so the word specifically means the process of child bearing. They are. It's the act. It's the process of childbearing. I'm sorry, guys. It's what the word means. And until someone can show me at them logically that it refers to something that animal logically can't. Then I'm not. I'm not budging on this one. It's. I could be wrong. I could be wrong. And it's. You just have to decide what context you think governs it. And for me, I think because we're back into pleural effusion, women and Paul's present that the context that governs this for me is what was being taught by the false teachers. And he Paul's trying to make this come back and be relevant in their situation. There is no question that this teaching is addressing a specific historical situation, just like almost every single verse in the Bible.

 

Unless you're born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God. Now, was that only true for Nicodemus? Because it was an expression in space and time to a specific person in a specific context? NAVA Obviously not. So just because something is delivered in a specific historical context doesn't inherently limit it to that. And so that's why 13 is such an important verse in the how I'm understanding this and I suppose why I said if 13 weren't there, I'd probably be an egalitarian. But I think that while it's addressing a specific historical situation and you've got to deal with the they if they continue in faith, so who's they? And I mean there's an historical situation involved that so you're seeing an ellipsis there and they will be saying if they yeah well this this is you got to go from the XI to the they. Um. Right in ellipses in that there's stuff missing. Yeah. I mean, this this will get a D-minus in a term paper for me because you skipped the logic of it. But it's, it is what Paul is doing. He's moving from the singular, even the past, the transgressor to the Ephesians women in his presence who can be saved that they're not permanently under Eve's deception or sin or whatever you want to call it. So it is it is contextual in that it's in the first century. The question is, I mean, that's how we understand it. That's how it gets its meaning. The question is, is its application limited to first century emphasis or does when you know or does the application of the truths that find their initial expression in first century emphasis carry over into other cultures and different times. So I find it interesting here is that we're reading a lot of stuff back then that yeah, no, on the 13th.

 

All right. But. Teaching and exercising authority over man. Is that is that a heresy? No, it's not heresy that they need to be. No, no. The thing they have to be safe from. Because. Because, because. Add Adam, Because Paul has made a link between Eve and the Fusion women as the only way this makes any sense at all is that he evidently feels the need to emphasize that even though Eve was a transgressor. Who she corresponds to. The Fijian women aren't necessarily stuck in that same state. They can be saved. You see the scene of these movies? I mean, these people. To be safe from what? He is really setting the stage. Yeah. So he's got to slip into they. Well, it's, it's, it's not so much what the women did, it's what Eve did. Because if you, if you don't have verse 15, first of all, we have a lot, lot shorter commentary. You have Eve being a transgressor. And apparently Paul didn't want to put a period at that point, sort of well, kind of a. He didn't want to end the discussion at that point where Eve was a transgressor, because in order for this to work, there's a correlation between even the women. He felt the need to say, okay, but whatever state he found herself in, you're not stuck in that same state. And so. You got to go from the sheet to the Z, from the transgressor to being saved. And he just does it so abruptly and it leaves out all the intermediate steps. It's just really confusing. Is that. Is that better? That makes sense. Okay. Said yes. Yeah. She'll be saved if they continue on faith and just left out and purge out from that. Yeah.

 

I mean, I wish what Paul had said was. But. But I've. Is can be saved, as can all of her descendants, be saved by doing what God has called them to do or have, he said. I mean, I wish she is stuck in some interim. He had stuck in some intermediate steps out there and represent women doing what? God. I, I think it represents one thing among many things that would distinguish the Fijian women following his instruction from the vision women following the false teachers. Again, you got to put this back into the old ad hoc business. You got to you got to get about what is being taught. And at the falls, teachers are teaching, don't get married and then presumably don't have children. Paul's saying that's not how you live out your life. That's not how you live out your life as a believer. You're not you're not stuck in your sin. Eve wasn't stuck in her sin. You're not stuck in. Doesn't specify what their sin is. That's not the point. The point is that because there's this correlation between Eve and the fish and women, he's got to move from being a transgressor to being not being a transgressor. And he just he just skipped so many steps. It's just that's why the verse is so weird. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm being highly interpretive. There's no question about that. You know, the heretics are saying, don't get married. He's got to say no marriage. And so he's saying childbirth is right. Important. Yeah, it's a good thing. It's not a bad thing. It's not the only thing. It's not the necessary thing, but it's not what the false teachers are saying they're prohibiting. It is our assumption, but rather this is one way in which you live out your life.

 

You can have children. Now, there may be other characteristics of how a girl will live out her life, but this is the one that set the vision women in distinction to the what the false teachers were teaching. Once he said he should be saved through the bearing of children and that was their salvation will work out in ways that are contrary to what the false teachers are teaching. It's like Paul catches himself and goes, Oh, that sounds like salvation by works. I don't want to say that. And I say, No, no. You also have to continue. You have to persevere faith and love and holiness and self-control. So he just saying it's not just this act of having children that shows you saved you. You have to continue to work out your salvation in ways that are godly. Yeah. Yeah. Any way you cut this, it's a frustrating verse because Paul steps over so many steps. Here's what I wrote up here. Um, I don't know if this is the commentary or not, but this is what I wrote in my notes. It became a center. But she and the Fijian women can be saved and that salvation will work itself out not by changing God's assigned roles, but by doing what God is called and gifted her to do. Among other things, this includes the bearing of children as well as continuing and faith, love and holiness. That's what I wish Paul had written and would be into chapter three at this point. Let me give you just a couple of quick, uh, conclusions. Um, I really believe God created us to be different. I think that's the whole point. And I know that the movement in our culture is a unisex movement, which is to deny the differences.

 

I love Ted talks. I listen to him all the time. You go there, TED.com. Uh, well, if you want to hear fascinating 18 minute topics on a wide, wide range of topics, a lot of talks. And it's I remember hearing one on, um, how do you define what is male and female and just very quickly dismissed. Anything that is physiological is dividing and and it's there's this movement to try to create a unisex kind of culture, androgynous or however you want to call it. And I just I just think God created us different and and the world is is. Desperately trying to erase the differences. And instead, what we should do is honor and rejoice in those differences. And to value them and to see how they complement one. One person said we weren't made to sing in unison. We were made to sing in two part harmony. Oh, that was pretty good. Robert and I are really, really different people. We we look at things differently. We react differently. But the other day I was in Greek class and I was trying to think of an example of a subordinate clause. And I said, I love Robin because. Because introduces a subordinate clause. So I love Robin because. And I realized I had no way to answer the question. Now. When I was married, I could give you a list of 83 things. The I love Robin. But after 30 years. I just love her. I mean, we we are so intertwined in our persons that while we're distinct people, I it's it was weird. I just love her. That's just the way it is. And, you know, so we value the differences. We see things that are different, but we're one person. And the world doesn't want that message at all.

 

And so there's no surprise that this is such a hot topic. But the main thing that I wanted to to close on is this that worth is not determined by roll. But if there's anything this world says is that a person's worth is determined by his or her role. So the CEO not only makes more money than the paper boy, but that he is inherently more valuable as a human being. That's what the world says, right? That. Um, and so any time you attach worth to rolls, you're going to get, things are going to get really, really messed up. I taught this class early on when I was working on the commentary at a seminary that you now have to be an egalitarian to come on campus. You can't speak in chapel, you can't do anything unless you're an egalitarian. And that was because of me. And I presented egalitarianism in complimentary ism. And the mere fact that a complimentary position was was presented, it shut the school down for over a week. Classes were canceled. They were so mad that the complimentary position had even been presented. And when I was, I mean, I knew it was coming. I had no idea it was going to be so vicious about. When I closed, you could feel about 120 people in the room. And there was a fact. One of the gals charged me and, you know, I'm sitting and trying to decide, do I let her hit me or do I knock on her can? But she was a very large six foot woman. So I didn't I mean, I was really since then, what do I do? What? And she was so mad at me. Um, and that I would even present this position.

 

Fortunately, she stopped and left and just asked for her money back. Um, but here's the note I concluded on, and that is that worth and roll are not the same thing. And that if you have a different role, it doesn't mean you're not worth as much. And I remember I could hear that growing in the class. I mean, it was a it was like there was an earthquake happening and that they were they were so angry at me. But there's no way to argue against that statement. Worth for a Christian is not determined by role in this world. Worth is determined by role. And so my daughter is in an environment where she can't do everything. She's not as valuable as the person who can. And that's the lie of the world. And the suffering servant is not of less worth. Then the people he came to serve. I mean, that's the ultimate example. But this is the debate in our churches at the very bedrock of it, that the gals in our churches, that's the struggle with this may for among different reasons, that they may struggle because everything around them is saying if you have a different role than your brother, you're not worth as much as your brother. Right. And it's just I mean, it is a strong message in our culture and it is about as unbiblical as a message can be worth and role in God's kingdom have no connection at all. So, for example, a deacon, an elder. Have exactly the same value before God. A slave in a free has exactly the same value before God. Male and female have exactly the same role, same worth before God. Even if roles are different, it doesn't affect worth. And this is this is an ongoing conversation I've had with Kirsten, and it's been very interesting to hear how society is fighting against that message.

 

But that is the biblical message.