Never Effortless

Ugh! Lawn day.

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 1 Timothy 3:1

Literally the first phrase is better as "True is the word" but I have not found a translation which poorly translates the phrase. It is important, however, in that it establishes the veracity of Paul's next topic—it's okay to seek leadership, which is a good work. The qualification list that follows in verses 2-12 weed out the right people (the unqualified) and are a must-be-adhered-to-list.

Often missed in the interpretation of verse 1 is the meaning of "work." Strong's says it's "toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication an act: - deed, doing, labour, work." Leadership, especially the servant leadership God expects, requires effort.

The many men who've mistakenly missed this point have failed—and usually in the area of servant-hood. A true servant leader is in the position because his desire is to do God's work and serve both Him and others. Serving oneself in leadership misses the point of it and ends in failure.

Aspire to the office for the right reason, then be ready to work.

Pressing on, Ed

A Biblical Unknown

This next verse is a problem if you want a definite interpretation. To try to sort it out for myself I did some thorough studying and reading – thus the delay of several days in writing. Here's the verse.

1 Timothy 2:15
KJV: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

NASB: But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

ESV: Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Here's some notes I made about translating the verse.

Greek New Testament	Strong's	Transliteration (of root word)	English Word	Notes	My Translation
σωθήσεται	4982	sōzō	heal, preserve, save, deliver, protect	3 pers sing pass fut Indic	she will be saved
δὲ	1161	de	but, and, etc.	conj	but
διὰ	1223	dia	in, through (the channel of)	prep	through
τῆς			the	def art, gen sing KJV, ESV ignore	the (her)
τεκνογονίας	5042	teknogonia	childbirth	n fem (only N.T. use)	bearing of children
ἐὰν	1437	ean	in case, if	Conditional particle	if
μείνωσιν	3306	menō	stay, remain, rest, dwell, lodge	3 pers pl aor 1 subj	they remain
ἐν	1722	en	in	prep denotes a fixed position	in
πίστει	4102	pistis	faith, belief, conviction (moral)	n fem dat sing	faith
καὶ			and	conj	and
ἀγάπῃ	26	agapē	love	n fem dat sing	love
καὶ			and	conj	and
ἁγιασμῷ	38	hagiasmos	purification, sanctity, holiness	n masc dat sing	holiness
μετὰ	3326	meta	with (when noun is in gen)	prep	with
σωφροσύνης	4997	sōphrosunē	soundness of mind, self-restraint/control, temperate, discreet	noun fem gen sing	self-restraint

Usual and most common interpretation

1. The singular verb must refer back to "the woman" (Eve) in v. 14. So as the mother of mankind, her salvation is based on her bearing of children, i.e., from her offspring will come the Savior.
   
2. Her offspring (they) receive the same salvation by remaining in faith, love, and sanctification with self-restraint.
   

Other interpretations I've read include...

1. Saved refers only to physical health, not spiritual salvation. Therefore, childbearing brings true wholeness or maintains a woman's health. However, try telling that to single women.
   
2. Some tie the verse to Gen 3:15 where the seed of a woman would crush the serpents head, a variation of the Messianic theme above.
   
3. The last is based on the Hebrew and Greek cultures viewing motherhood as a very health-giving experience and that the woman's basic value was in giving birth to children and raising them.
   

I really appreciate commentator Gary Demarest's view when discussing 1 Timothy 2:12-15,

It need not be surprising that Paul reflected the view of the Fall which prevailed in his time. To make this a case for the inherent inferiority of women is neither necessary nor good. This is not the only passage by Paul which presents us with difficulty. His allegorical treatment of Sarah and Hagar, with Hagar corresponding to Mount Sinai and the earthly Jerusalem in contrast to the heavenly Jerusalem (Sarah) (Gal. 4:21-31), is not as clear as we might wish. Likewise, his argument in Romans 11 and the statement that "all Israel will be saved" (11:26) is a source of continuing difficulty, and interpreters have been unable to agree upon a universally acceptable solution.

Rather than make a case for a rigid view of the inferiority and subservience of women, why not place this passage in the category of those remarkably few statements of Paul which best be admitted to be beyond our grasp? There's no question in my mind that it reflects a debatable view. To argue that the sequence of the creation narrative teaches the superiority of the man certainly goes beyond anything said in Genesis.

To me this is one of the passages about which God will reveal more when I have complete understanding.

Pressing on, Ed ><}}}>

Not the Same

A busy week lies ahead. I beg your prayers as I balance things. Thanks.

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NASB)

Here Paul tells us his justification for his teachings concerning the appearance and conduct of women in the church. There are two:

1. Man was created to handle such things, women not, and
   
2. Satan did not tempt Adam, but Eve, allowing him to knowingly transgress without having been deceived and thus in God's sovereignty to hold power over her.
   

In my limited experience, when a woman does not acknowledge the husband's greater responsibility and role, it's because she does not acknowledge God's rule over her life.

Men and women are different. God made things that way and we need to recognize and accept it. (For any naturalist readers, it's true among animals as well; the lioness hunts for the male, the rooster crows, etc.; innumerable differences.)

Mankind is happiest when living under God's supervision and design.

Pressing on, Ed ><}}}>

Not the Norm

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12, NASB

Whereas verse 11 was command based on culture, our verse this time does not appear to be so. Nothing has changed in God's Word about who should be the head of the house or be responsible for instruction therein and this verse only speaks to extending those teachings into the church—the context of the passage.

Men have a function in the world despite what some ultra-feminists might believe. Paul is affirming that no woman is to usurp authority (KJV) from a man.

This is just as much a command for the men of the church not to surrender their God-given responsibility to women. This failure of men is too often evident, even among evangelicals.

There are churches and whole denominations who wrongly interpret this, allowing women deacons, board members, elders, and/or pastors. My guess is they mistakenly consider this too as a cultural issue. It's not.

I have heard of cases in missionary fields where women led a church for a time, simply because there were no trained or qualified men. This is a different story; especially in one case where the female missionaries worked diligently to train leaders and then step out of leadership, fully submitting to the new national church leaders while remaining available for advice. This incident seems like an appropriate exception. But not normal.

Shh! Sermon in Progress

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 1Timothy 2:11, NASB

After addressing the issue of what they should wear, Paul reaffirms (see 1Cor 14:34) their attitude toward instruction. Culturally, the rabbis had strictly prohibited women saying anything in a synagogue. Paul is extending that prohibition in the Christian church. It would seem that during services, men could comment on and perhaps debate theological issues, but women could not. Things have changed today – culturally.

For the most part during Sunday school or small Bible studies, people of both sexes are free to chime in, but during a sermon when theology is being taught, everyone holds their tongue (or at least they should*). If expressed at all, people comment or debate after the message to the minister as they leave. It's what we do today and is just as acceptable behavior now as was the practice of silent women in the first century of the church.

I believe Paul is simply restating common practice of the day just as I would encourage everyone today to hold comments for me until after the message. It's cultural.

Pressing on, Ed ><}}}>

* A long story I'll keep as short as possible. About six years ago, a deacon in our congregation who everyone knew disagreed with me politically spoke up during the sermon. The Scriptural topic was deceit and its consequences. At each point, I had an illustration of a publicly stated falsehood and the results it had on the liar's life and/or career. Two of the illustrations were from political figures and I had been purposeful in choosing one from each party. Unfortunately, I choose to use the "wrong" party first. As soon as it became clear which incident I was referring to, the deacon called out demanding that I "get off" politics.

There was a long silence. I was embarrassed and others later said that they felt the same. (Two in the meeting came later and advised that I seek a public apology because they were offended, which was the best advice I received.) I explained that the story simply exemplified my point. I finished the sermon and right or wrong, I left off the other political illustration.

Inviting him to my office a few days later, he came and after some coaxing apologized to me but stated plainly that he would leave the church before he'd give a public apology even knowing he had offended others. I was honest in stating that I really didn't want him to leave but it turned out to be the wrong decision.

I believe now based on the longer story that ensured that he saw my willingness to acquiesce as the beginning of his hold on me. More and more often, though either privately or in small business meetings, he attempted to get me to leave the congregation and thwarted efforts at moving forward. Three years later, he did leave, but with bitterness in his heart, and sorrow on the part of nearly everyone else including me in the congregation.

I for one continue to pray for him and continue to affirm that in our cultural both men and women must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness during the sermon.