Scripture Reading

Well, please turn with me in your Bibles to 1 Timothy chapter 2. 1 Timothy chapter 2, I'll read the chapter and then our focus will be on verses 11 to 15, but beginning in 1 Timothy chapter 2 at verse 1. Therefore, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle.

I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control. Amen.

Let us pray.

Opening Prayer

Our Father, we thank you for this beautiful day. We thank you for the revelation of your glory in the created order. We thank you as well for the revelation of your goodness, your loving kindness, your mercy and grace in the redemptive order. We thank you for the word of God.

We pray now that the Spirit of God would guide our thoughts and our minds and our hearts and give us receptive hearts. We ask that these things would enlighten our eyes, that they would rejoice our hearts, that you would cause us, Lord God, to be wise in terms of Scripture. Forgive us for all of our sin and transgression and those things that darken our understanding. Cleanse us in that precious blood of the Lamb.

And we thank you for that Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. And we thank you for your sovereign grace that brings us here together Now, bound together in unity and love, and ultimately because of the head of the church, even our Lord Jesus Christ. And we pray in His most blessed name. Amen.

Introduction

Well, if you remember in chapter 1 in verse 18, Paul says, this charge I commit to you, son. Timothy picks this up from chapter 1, verse 6, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare. And then Paul explains in detail what that good warfare looks like. Again, it's not a conference on apologetics, it's not reading a specific book or two, but rather it is faithful churchmanship and faithful leadership within the context of the local church.

He deals with God's mercy and grace, and he shows us the priority of God in terms of church life with reference to prayer. Verse 1 in chapter 2, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men. is a priority in the good warfare. He then moves his attention to men and their conduct in the life of the church, specifically in verse 8. I desire, therefore, that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting.

And then he turns his attention to the conduct of women in corporate worship. Again, corporate worship is essential for our understanding of this particular passage. I think chapter 3, verse 15 makes that clear. But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.

And so Paul directs attention to the women and their conduct first, addressing adornment. Notice in verse 9, in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. So he deals with the conduct of women specifically relative to adornment. And then in verses 11 to 15, he deals with the conduct of women specifically relative to authority.

And so as we come to verses 11 to 15, there's going to be a bit of a difference in the way that I treated adornment. I was a bit hesitant with some specifics as ultimately the way a woman dresses for church is up to her husband or up to her father. And yes, ladies, he is in fact the boss of you. I am not.

This section, however, is more directly connected to the elders of the church vis-a-vis who stands behind the pulpit. And so when it comes to verses 11 to 15, I think it's obvious the prohibition is clear. The prohibition is not up for grabs. It's not up for debate.

The apostle Paul says unequivocally, I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. Unfortunately, the clarity of that is missed by some in the context of the church. There is an egalitarian movement, a desire to let women preach in the gathered church, let women serve as elders and pastors in the gathered church. Again, as we move our way through the exposition tonight, I hope that you will see it is clear, it's very simple, and it makes good biblical sense, as Paul argues, not from culture, but rather he argues from creation and fall.

Overview of Three Sections

So with reference to verses 11 to 15, there are three main sections. In verse 11, the reception of the word. Secondly, the prohibition of the apostle, verses 12 to 14. And then finally, the blessing upon women in verse 15.

But the first emphasis is in the reception of the word in verse 11.

Reception of the Word (v. 11)

You can look there. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. The duty is very simple. Let a woman learn.

Let a woman learn with all submission." In other words, she is to attend upon the Word of God, to be fed by that Word, such that she can grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Now, there's an obvious connection with verses 8 to 10, or 9 and 10. The woman in her adornment is not to come to church to draw attention to herself. She's not to come to church in something that is immodest.

She is not to come to church in something that is very, you know, outside the bounds, costly. She is not to engage in an ostentatiousness and try to grab the eye of men or women. Rather, she is to come to church to hear the word of the living God. The connection to verse 12 ought to be very clear as well.

The prohibition against women teaching is not a prohibition against women learning. In other words, Paul does not ban or forbid them from coming near the word of God. He simply bans or forbids them preaching the word of God in the gathered church of the Lord Jesus Christ. So the prohibition against teaching in the text is not a prohibition of access to the Word.

She, like men, are supposed to come, and she, like men, are supposed to receive that Word, and she, like men, are supposed to grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Notice that Paul not only specifies the duty in verse 11, let a woman learn, but then he highlights the manner. In silence with all submission. In silence with all submission.

Now that means what it says. It means silence. Some have suggested that the idea is that she's not supposed to be disruptive. She's not to be disorderly.

Now the text is very clear, she's supposed to be silent. If you turn back to 1 Corinthians chapter 14, you see something of a parallel there. 1 Corinthians chapter 14. specifically at verses 34 and 35. So they are to be submissive, notice as the law also says, likely the book of Genesis, likely the creation account, likely the time when God made Adam and then he made Eve as a help meat for Adam. He made one comparable to Adam and then brought the woman to the man in order to help him along in the task of subduing the earth, multiplying image bearers and filling the earth with the presence and the glory of God Almighty.

So the woman is to be silent in the church. Now that obviously does not mean she can't talk in the foyer before the service starts. It cannot mean that if her son's about to do a swan dive off the pew into the center aisle that she's not supposed to say, stop. The idea is that she's to learn in, or she's to receive the Word, rather, or learn in silence with all submission.

The silence reflects, demonstrates, and exhibits the submission that she has under God. God has ordained that men lead in the home, and God has ordained that men lead in the church. God has ordained this in Ephesians chapter 5, Colossians chapter 3, 1 Peter chapter 3, with reference to women in the home, with reference to women in the church, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy chapter 2. And the tactics or the strategies of the apostles is that they reach back into creation to validate their particular arguments.

In other words, it's not Ephesian culture. It's not the Artemis cult. It's not what's happening on a regular basis in godless pagan nations. Rather, it is grounded upon the authority of God Almighty.

So it doesn't simply mean she can't be disruptive or disorderly. It means they are to be silent in the church. Silence here equals subjection, subordination, and submission. And incidentally, with reference to 1 Corinthians 11 and the head covering issue, whatever Paul is arguing there with reference to head coverings, the central point is obvious.

Men are to lead in praying and prophesying with reference to the gathered church. When the angels look down, they're not looking for hats. They're not looking for so long of hair. They're not looking for doilies.

They're not looking for those externals, rather they are looking to see if men are leading the church as God has ordered in His Word throughout. So it's grounded upon the law of God, probably and most specifically the book of Genesis and the creation account. So let a woman learn in silence with all submission.

The Apostolic Prohibition (vv. 12–14)

Then notice secondly the prohibition of the apostle in verses 12 to 14. In the first place, we ought to understand something of his authority.

Authority of the Apostle

Notice in verse 12, and I do not permit, I think I mentioned George Bernard Shaw. He was a Irish playwright. He lived from 1856 to 1950, and in his words, he says Paul came off as the, quote, eternal enemy of woman. Paul the apostle, the eternal enemy of woman.

Now, he's probably not alone in that particular assessment. He's probably not alone with reference to what Paul says here. I mean, this can sound offensive in our egalitarian age. This can sound offensive in our girl boss age.

This can sound offensive when we want to just diminish all of the unique gifts that our sisters bring to the table, and yet Paul has the gall to say, I do not permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man, but to be in silence. Notice, twice in two verses, 11 and 12, Paul emphasizes silence. Why? Because the silence demonstrates, the silence indicates, and the silence exhibits her submissiveness to her husband in the home, to her husband in the church, and to the elders and male leadership within the context of the church.

So, with reference to His authority, we've already seen it. 1.1. The apostle is clear, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ our hope. As well, we see it in 11 and 12. He says, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

And I thank Christ, Christ Jesus our Lord, who has enabled me because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry. Notice as well throughout his epistles he highlights the reality that his authority is grounded in his apostolic ministry given to him by Christ through the commandment of God Almighty. Now just because we don't like one of his commands doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to command it. Just because it kind of cuts against the grain of that girl boss mentality doesn't mean he doesn't have the right and especially under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to command this.

Again, the church must reflect God's intention with reference to the created order. He made man to lead and the helper, the wife to be his helper and submit in the home. We see that principle carried over into the church as well.

Four Aspects of the Prohibition

Now, in terms of the prohibition, I want to highlight four things. First, women are prohibited from teaching men in the church. Again, I don't see how that could be missed. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. The teaching in the context is the sense of handing down a fixed body of doctrine which must be mastered and then preserved intact. It envisages what we see in 1 Timothy 3 at verse 2 with reference to the bishop. He must be able to teach.

Notice in 1 Timothy 4 verses 6 to 11, we'll just read verse 11. These things command and teach. As well, we've got 1 Timothy 6 and verse 2, and those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. 2 Timothy 4, 2, preach the word, be ready in season and out of season.

Convince, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching. The teaching envisaged here is the teaching of men in the context of the local church. As well, the apostle Paul explains, and he'll further explain in 1 Timothy 3, verses 1 to 7, it's not just any man. I thought about this.

If a woman says, does God have an ax to grind against me because He doesn't allow me to teach or preach in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ? You'd have to argue consistently that God has an ax to grind with a whole host of men that aren't called to teach and preach in the context of the church as well. God doesn't have access to grind. God has order to maintain.

God has a will reveal. God has a specificity with reference to the created order. And what we see is the demonstration of that in passages and in context like these. Women can teach other women.

Titus 2, verses 3-5. Women can teach children. 2 Timothy 1, 5 and 2 Timothy 3, 15. And women can teach men in a private setting, according to Acts 18, 24-28. Priscilla and Aquila explain the way of the Lord to Apollos more excellently.

The prohibition is specifically related to the context of church worship. The second observation is that women are prohibited from exercising authority over men in the church. Again, notice in verse 12, I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Now, Paul's use of authority here is the only time this particular word shows up in the New Testament.

And you might imagine that there's different interpretations put on that word. And it's usually connected to which side of the divide are you on. Are you against women teaching and preaching in the context of the local church? Then you're going to read the word neutrally.

If you're for women teaching and preaching in the church, you're going to read the word with a negative connotation. The old King James kind of suggests this when it says usurp authority. Well, what if she hasn't usurped it? Can there nevertheless be the handing of authority to her?

I don't think the King James translators would have implied that, they would have mentioned that, they would have emphasized that, and probably usurp didn't have negative feelings or connotations back then, feelings, I don't know where that came from, connotations back then, but it certainly does now. Usurp authority means she did something to get that authority that was wrong. So can we say if she didn't do anything wrong, authority can be granted to her? I think that's a wrong reading.

Gordon Fee, who was an excellent exegete and a godly man, translates it domineering. She's not to be domineering over the people of God or the men in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, again, that reflects an egalitarian reading. As long as she's not domineering, she can nevertheless engage in these particular functions.

And so how we come to this particular word is usually with our already have had conclusions with reference to the word. But as I said, the word in and of itself, it doesn't suggest negativity and it doesn't suggest positivity. And what we find here in terms of exercise authority is perfectly appropriate. In 1 Corinthians 7, 4, the apostle uses another word for authority, the more common word, and he says there that women do have authority in one specific context over their husbands, and that's with reference to the marriage bed.

The husband has authority over his wife, and the wife has authority over her husband relative to sexual intimacy. But in the context of the local church, the Apostle Paul again is clear and unequivocal, I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence. I would suggest thirdly that women then are prohibited from holding the offices of elder and deacon. Again, 1 Timothy 3 1-7 deals with Elder. 1 Timothy 3 8-13 deals with Deacon in specifically, obviously, charged categories of men and women.

Notice in verse 1 of chapter 3, if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. Notice in verse 2, he must be the husband of one wife. In chapter, I'm sorry, in verse 11, likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children in their own house as well.

So with reference to this particular connection, the apostle prohibits the activity of teaching and exercising authority. So by extension, he excludes their holding the office, which is uniquely characterized by the exercise of those activities. In other words, if she's not supposed to teach or exercise authority over man, she's not supposed to be an elder. What's the two primary emphases with reference to eldership?

He's to teach and he's to govern or lead or manage or rule. And so if she's prohibited from the activity, she is certainly prohibited from the office. To say, well, they can't be elders and deacons, but they can teach and preach in the context of the church is to miss Paul's argument by a long shot. The apostle provides qualifications for elders and deacons, and they are most obviously men in the context of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And then the fourth observation, again, women are commanded to be in silence. This is the second time in two verses. Verses 11 and 12. Verse 11, learn in silence.

Verse 12, you're not supposed to teach or exercise authority over a man, but rather you are to be in silence. Again, the silence is expressive or demonstrable of the submission. And if it's not silence, then it's not submission. It's not just a, well, they get out of line once in a while.

No, the general demeanor and the general characteristic in terms of church life is that women are to be silent learners and silent with reference to the teaching and preaching ministry of the church.

The Apostle's Reasons

Then we look at the apostle's reasons. We're in the prohibition of the apostle, verses 12 to 14. We see his authority, 12a. We see his prohibition, 12b.

And now we see the apostle's reasons or rationale or arguments in verses 13 and 14. I want to first start with what he doesn't mean. What doesn't the apostle Paul mean? And when you hear this list rattled off, this is what the egalitarians, those who argue that women should be preachers, women should be pastors, women should exercise authority over men, this is usually the tactics that they take.

So I would suggest first, the apostle prohibits deceived women. That's not what I'm saying, but that's what they might say. The apostle prohibits deceived women. No.

He says women. The apostle prohibits women from teaching false doctrine. No. He says women.

The apostle prohibits women from exercising authority over elders. No. He says over men, certainly elders are a subset of men, generally speaking, always speaking. The apostle prohibits women because of a particular problem in Ephesus.

This is usually the biggest of their armament. Ephesus was riddled with a pagan cult dedicated to a woman. Of course they had woman problems. Of course they had disruption.

Of course they had disorderliness. Paul's not making a universal law relative to all churches everywhere in all time. No, no, no, no. He's speaking about Ephesus.

He's speaking about the particular milieu or context that he finds himself in. Douglas Moo says, by citing creation rather than a local situation or cultural circumstance as his basis for the prohibitions, Paul makes it clear that while these local or cultural issues may have provided the context of the issue, they do not provide the reason for his advice. So let's look at the reason for his, not advice, his command.

Creation and Fall as Grounds

Notice in verses 13 and 14. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression." It's pretty obvious what the apostle is arguing from. Creation of man and woman and the fall of man and woman.

Verse 13, creation. Verse 14, fall. Not, hey, I was walking downtown in Ephesus today and I saw these unruly women and it reminded me that you had this same problem in your church. And because of the unruly women out there, I'm sure that there's some unruly in here.

So for our particular context, I want to make sure you know that I do not permit a woman to teach her exorcist. That's not it. He argues from creation and fall, paradigmatic or pattern for all of God's creation. And in redemption, I mentioned this yesterday when we were having the theology class on Saturday morning, when the apostles highlight what we have in Jesus Christ as new men and women in Christ Jesus, they don't start with a brand new pile of ethics for the people of God.

Okay, everything you thought you know, you just got to get rid of that and now do all these new things. No, that's not it at all. Do you know where they reach back for Christian ethics for the redeemed man and woman? They reach back to Genesis 1 to 3.

Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. How does Paul go on in his argument there in Ephesians chapter 5? He goes back to the creation account. Wives, be submissive to your own husbands as unto the Lord.

Where does he go to ground this imperative? He goes back to the creation account. In other words, new man, new woman in Christ Jesus are supposed to take that old stuff and put it into practice because that old stuff is the mind and will and plan and purpose of God that is most suited excellently and wisely for the benefit of his creatures. And so the same thing holds here.

He argues from creation and fall. With reference to the creation of man and woman, notice in verse 13, he appeals to this. Again, not an appeal to problems in the culture, not an appeal to the Artemis cult. He as well applies the creation account in the church, as I mentioned, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2, and then Peter does in 1 Peter 3, but as well in the church.

You see that. I'm sorry, he does it in the church in those passages. 1 Peter 3, rather, is in the home, along with Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. And it's just at this point that we really need to be careful that because we were brought up in a particular context or a particular situation that has somewhat thrown all of this stuff off, the hearing of it and the reminders of it ought not to be like, wow, that'll just change everything. I sure hope not.

I sure hope all of us are imbibing these ethics as redeemed men and women, that wives submitting to their own husbands isn't an affront to you. that it doesn't make you bristle inside. I mean, there's remaining corruption. I've often thought if I had to submit to me, you know, that mandate placed on Rebecca, I'd struggle, I'm sure. Just gonna be honest here with you.

But if there's an overarching prejudice against the concept of submission on the part of a woman to her husband in both home and church, there's problems there. The apostle Paul is very clear. He is not the eternal enemy of woman. Rather, he is the champion of woman.

And then the emphasis in the creation account. Notice again, verse 12 or verse 13, for Adam was formed first, then Eve. I do not think that Paul's primary emphasis there is on chronology. We know that Adam was formed first.

We know that Adam named the animals. Adam realized there was not one comparable unto him. And so God then caused Adam to go into a deep sleep, took out a rib, fashioned the woman and brought the woman to Adam. It's not chronology, it's purpose.

It's not chronology, it's function. It's not chronology, it's order. The woman was brought to him to be submissive. The woman was brought to him to be his helper.

The woman was brought to him to take him as her man and to follow his leadership in the church, in the home. The Lord God Most High designed it in this particular manner. Notice in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 11, again the overarching theme, wherever you fall on hats, is verse 3. I hope you don't fall on hats, but if you do happen to fall on a hat, notice that verse 3 is the overarching concern of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 11.

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. Notice that. The head of woman is man.

Notice that Paul doesn't say, you know, Corinthians, let's have a vote. Ephesians, let's have a vote. People all over the world, let's have a vote. Who should we let lead?

What is assumed in the apostle's argument? What is assumed and incorporated into his presentation of these particular role distinctives within the church? What is assumed is Genesis 1 to 3. The head of woman is man.

Notice in verses 8 and 9, for man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. I'm not a woman, so I can't enter in fully or wholly or completely, but there's nothing evil about that. There's nothing bad about that.

I think it should cause some degree of prayerfulness and wisdom and searching of scriptures as to which man you're going to marry, which man you're going to submit to, which man you're going to be under. Which man you're answerable to? But conceptually and in principle, what's wrong with that? What's bad about that?

As well, what we have in terms of the particular creation account is that Adam and Eve had the same ontology. That means being. They were made of the same stuff. Adam didn't get, you know, super high-grade, you know, 40-weight blood.

Or, you know, Eve's just a 30-weight. Ontologically, men and women are the same. Functionally, God makes them in his own image and distinguishes them by sex. There are men and there are women.

There are things unique to men and there are things unique to women. Again, why the problem? Fish probably don't have fish conventions where they complain that they don't get to fly. Birds probably don't have birds conventions where they complain that they don't get to swim.

Why is it that we all complain about the way God made us? Well, I don't like this, tough. You need to submit, or conversely, husband, you need to lead lovingly the way that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her. Just because we're perhaps not good at something or perhaps we don't feel like it's our gift, we nevertheless are duty-bound by the Most High to follow wherever He calls us.

Gill says, the woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation and was antecedent to the fall. That means it was before the fall. See, some suggest it's because of the fall that this superior and inferior relationship obtained. Well, if there was never a fall, they would have been functionally equivalent in all ways.

No, no. It was antecedent. In other words, prior to the fall, God already structured the order that way. The husband, not just chronologically, but in terms of purpose and function, was first.

The wife was to help him. The wife was to be led by him. The wife was to be in silence with reference to the church. The wife was to be submissive in the context of church and home.

So woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation and was antecedent to the fall and would have been if that had never been. In other words, if there had never been a fall, that wouldn't have changed the created order. That wouldn't have changed things for better or worse with reference to God's purpose. God's purpose is always better.

God knows what his creatures need. And God made us in such a way that we are comparable to one another. Instead of fighting that, instead of arguing against it, instead of trying to abdicate our responsibility, let's embrace it, try to be good at it. As well notice, he moves on then to the fall of man, verse 14.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. So again, he appeals to the fall, not the culture. Now there's an indirectness. Every culture's messed up since the fall, but that's not the argument.

The argument is creation and fall grounds the imperative of verse 12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over men, but to be in silence. So the appeal to the fall highlights in this particular context the aggravation of Adam's sin. It's the aggravation of Adam's sin.

Look again at verse 14, and Adam was not deceived. He wasn't deceived. He knew all too well what God had forbade in Genesis chapter 2. There was no deception for Adam.

That's aggravation. He willfully, knowingly took that fruit from his wife and he ate it. So it doesn't get Adam off the hook, but it rather puts him in the hot seat when Paul indicates this. Notice, though, the identification of Eve's particular sin.

Verse 14, And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. This is not Paul's interpretation to make his case. This isn't Paul making this up. She was deceived.

Therefore, every woman after her will always ever be deceived. So therefore they can't. No, no. This was Eve's response to Yahweh in Genesis 3, 13.

The Lord God said to the woman, what is this you have done? The woman said, the serpent deceived me and I ate. Paul recognizes that. Paul acknowledges that.

Again, I don't think the emphasis for Paul is that every single woman subsequent to Eve will always and only and ever be deceived. If that was the case, they ought not to teach other women. If that was the case, they ought not to teach little children. If that was the case, they ought not to teach men in a private setting alongside their husband.

I don't think that's the universal principle. It's a particular instance and reference to the deception that obtained with reference to Eve. Paul cites this in 2 Corinthians 11, 3, I fear it less somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. As I mentioned earlier, there's an ontological equality.

Men and women are the same. but there is a creationally imposed distinction. Men are men and women are women. That's just it. It's pretty bizarre you have to argue for that now.

I refuse to in this church. You get that. He created that male and female, not alongside of 87 other gender identifiers. No, no, we're not doing that at all.

So the reality of a creational distinction, God created men and women as image bearers of God, but distinguished them into sexes and gave them distinct roles, callings, and responsibilities. When we first started off in the church in Palmdale many, many, many years ago, I remember a sermon series that Pastor Barcelos preached, and it was on gender-based role distinctives. gender-based role distinctives. It became affectionately known as G-BIRD. I remember saying, are you doing G-BIRD again?

Gender-based role distinctive, G-BIRD. There are gender-based role distinctives in the Bible. Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Wives, be submissive to your own husbands as unto the Lord.

Men function as elders and deacons in the church. Men teach and preach in the church. Women don't teach and preach in the church. Women are to learn in silence.

They're not supposed to teach and they're not supposed to exercise authority in the church. Now, with the Eve argument, I kind of wrestled with how to say this, because it's probably going to come out weird. The reality of a creationally potential susceptibility to deception. I don't know how better to word this.

The reality of creationally potential susceptibility. Again, I don't think all women everywhere are hardwired to be deceived. I think there's a whole host of men out there that can be deceived as well. Moron, ignorant fools that are subject to every wind of doctrine.

So I don't think there's some part of the DNA code that is a predilection to deception on the part of a woman. But just thinking through this, and again, this is not, you know, Paul says this and Paul means that. Could it be that when God makes this distinction, male and female, could it be that when God does what he does in terms of creational responsibilities and functions within family, within church, within society, that he forms them or builds them in a particular way to fulfill that function? In other words, he makes men and puts extra testosterone in them so that when the hordes show up at the city gates, they go out and destroy them.

He builds women in such a way that they're softer. They're nurturers. To use Peter's words in 1 Peter 3, 7, they're weaker. Being weaker, do you send them out to attack the hordes?

You're fools if you do. So you wanna win the hordes. You send the tea-filled men that are foaming at the mouth ready to meet the hordes. Could it be in that softer, weaker area?

There is an increased susceptibility to deception. They're typically kinder, typically gentler, typically nicer. It might just be that. Again, I don't think the universal principle is Eve was deceived, therefore every single woman is ever going to be deceived.

Again, why would we let them teach other women? Why would we let them teach children? Why would we let them teach men in a private setting? We wouldn't do that if they're only ever going to be deceived.

So I don't think Paul is using Eve's deception in terms of saying every woman everywhere always be deceived. But in the grand scheme of things, statistically speaking, women tend to have that direction in them more than men do. But again, plenty of men have it as well. Maybe it's low T, maybe it's higher estrogen, maybe it's just that they're dumb, but they are susceptible to deception just like women can be.

But as far as Paul is concerned, he's not arguing based on culture, ethicist is messed up, so therefore, I don't want a woman to teach or exercise authority. No, he goes back to Adam, he goes back to Eve, and he grounds his argument right there, right where it belongs. And as far as the responsibility for the fall, because you might read verse 14 and say, well, Eve was deceived, and this was bad, and then Adam sinned. It's always squarely laid upon Adam's shoulders.

Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul does not say Adam and Eve. He says Adam. What you have when you get to Genesis 3 is a reversal of what happens in Genesis 1 and 2.

In Genesis 1, God makes man and tells him to exercise dominion over the lower creatures. Genesis chapter 2, God makes Eve and brings her to Adam to help him to exercise dominion over the lower creatures. So Adam is the vice-regent, Eve is his helper in that particular task, and they're supposed to do the earth, including the lower creatures. Chapter 3 starts off with a lower creature at the top of the chain, talking then to the woman.

The woman is deceived, and the woman hands the fruit to her husband, who willfully transgresses and takes that fruit. It's inversion. It is a flipping the script. It is the introduction of chaos into cosmos.

And so the scriptures lay the blame, not that we should want to do that necessarily, but it's on Adam.

The Blessing Upon Women (v. 15)

And then the final verse, verse 15, the blessing upon women. There's two ways to approach this. I'll be quick. Nevertheless, she will be saved and childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control.

I think Mu represents the common interpretation. The passage designates the circumstances in which Christian women will experience or work out in the language of Philippians 2.12, their salvation in maintaining as priorities those key roles that Paul, in keeping with scripture elsewhere, highlights being faithful, helpful wives, raising children to love and reverence God. managing the household. This does not mean no children, no salvation. So don't take that away from this.

If you happen to be a single woman or you happen to be a barren woman, it's not the case that you cannot be saved. I favor what's called the messianic interpretation. If you go back to verse 14, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. I argue that this aggravates Adam's sin.

He wasn't deceived. He willfully, knowingly entered into the eating of the prohibited fruit. But Eve doesn't come off good in verse 14. She was deceived and fell into transgression.

What might be the supposition? Well, then Eve's going to be damned to hell and reprobate and, you know, weeping and gnashing and wailing. No, notice verse 15, nevertheless, she, singular, Nevertheless, she, Eve, will be saved in childbearing. I think, again, Paul has Genesis in his brain, and Paul is telling us the hope for Eve and every subsequent believing woman. is in Jesus Christ, the child bearing.

The use of the singular she in verse 15 and then the plural form of they at the latter part of verse 15 indicates, at least in my mind and on this reading, that the first half deals with Eve bringing forth the seed. Now it wasn't Eve that gave birth to Jesus, but it was in the context where the promise was made that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. So nevertheless, she will be saved in the childbearing, not in the act of it that every woman that has babies goes through, but in one particular childbearing, the childbearing of Genesis 3.15. In other words, what's the hope for Eve?

What's the hope for women in Ephesus? What's the hope for women in Chilliwack? It's the childbearing. It's the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.

This is messianic in terms of what the apostle is communicating. Nevertheless, she will be saved in the childbearing. And then notice the shift, the application to all saved women if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control. In other words, it's not like you're lesser of a redeemed being.

It's not like you're not a joint heir with Jesus Christ. It's not like you're not a co-heir with your husband in redemptive blessing and privilege. You've got the same hope. You've got the same justification.

You've got the same sanctification and the same promise of glorification. Women and men both experience benefit from the childbearing. They both benefit from the incarnation of our Lord. But in terms of a woman practically relative to church life and relative to home life, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with self-control, In other words, that's the orientation, that's the sphere, that's the place where you work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Based on the childbearing, you've been saved by God's grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and the emphasis for you is not, go out and become a preacher, go out and exercise authority over a man. No, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with self-control. Control yourself relative to those things that perhaps you don't like, be in silence. Those things that perhaps you don't like, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.

Perhaps there's just a bit of remaining corruption there that box it, that sort of a thing. Exercise self-control just like everybody else has to do with whatever else challenges we face.

Application

So in conclusion, I would suggest the clarity of the prohibition is such that You can't not see it. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man but to be in silence. No cultural argument. No male chauvinistic argument.

Paul, the eternal enemy of woman. Come on. What a fool. The pattern of creation and fall.

You got to see it when you read through the New Testament. You see redemptive ethics applied. It's not some brand new thing. It's what we failed at doing in the first place and what we need to be doing as renewed men in Christ Jesus.

I would suggest in terms of the common objections to the prohibition, the primary one is the problem was a cultural problem. I've already dealt with that, but I want to read Gordon Clark. He says, Paul's divinely inspired teaching was not culturally conditioned. but too much contemporary exegesis is. Imagine that.

Oh, it was the culture in Ephesus. It couldn't possibly be the culture in America that misses the obvious. Well, Ephesus was messed up, and America's not? See, our view of what we think we oftentimes bring to the text.

And if we're girl boss sort of people, we're going to argue out of what Paul says here very clearly. Secondly, the passage reflects Paul's problem with women. Again, eternal enemy of women. How do you get that out of this?

Then God must be the eternal enemy of women, not only because he's the authority behind the Apostle Paul, but because he made Eve to help Adam. Because he tells wives to be submissive to their own husbands as unto the Lord. Because he tells them to be silent in the churches. Another argument is that the passage neglects women God used in the past.

You maybe have heard that, right? Miriam was a prophet, Deborah was a prophet, Huldah was a prophet, Isaiah's wife was a prophet, Anna was a prophet, and Philip's four daughters were prophets. So you mean just disregard all that? No, I mean that we go based on what the word of God dictates, demands, and commands relative to order in our churches.

Why didn't God kill David? David committed two capital crimes. He committed adultery and he committed murder to cover up the adultery. Those are capital offenses.

Why didn't God kill him? I've been asked that. Why didn't God kill him? Or why didn't God so move the civil state around David at that time that they execute him?

You know what my answer is? I don't know. But this much I do know, it doesn't invalidate the clear command in Genesis chapter 9 and Romans 13 that the civil state execute criminal offenders. In other words, the extraordinary doesn't upbraid or replace or displace the ordinary.

Calvin interprets it this way. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overthrow the ordinary rules of government by which he intended that we should be bound. Balaam's ass spoke, brethren. Do we let donkeys in behind the pulpit?

I mean, there's extraordinary things that have happened. Now I'm not equating a woman prophetess to Balaam's ass speaking. That maybe wasn't the best possible. You mean it's as likely for me to prophesy as for Balaam's ass to speak?

That wasn't really how I intended for that to come out. The point is, is that the extraordinary doesn't displace the ordinary. What are we supposed to live our lives based on? The revealed commands of God.

The revealed commands of God are through his apostle, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. Revealed will and commands of God is 1 Timothy 3, 1-7 relative to elders and 8-13 relative to deacons. As well, the passage rejects a woman's use of her gifts. Again, I don't even know how to answer this.

God not only gives the gifts, but he specifies where those gifts are supposed to be utilized. And it's occurred to me, and maybe this is gonna sound like dirty pool, but the few women that I have met along the way, none of you, I don't know of any of you that have claimed the spirit of prophecy or discernment, but the few I've bumped into along the way, and the few I've heard of, they never seem to discern, make good food for your husband, provide a context of peace in the home, engage in the marriage bed often with your husband, their discernment always is the big, the extraordinary, and those things which make a significant impact. It's kind of like, you know, everybody wants to minister in the church until a kid vomits on the carpet, and then that's not my gift. If you have gifts, use them.

If you have gifts, bless others with them. There's two specific places where God says you can't do that in terms of the gathered church. You can't teach or exercise authority over a man. I'm not sure how that negates a woman's gifts.

It just doesn't make sense. And the passage complicates church life. What if there are no qualified men? We become pragmatists and start ordaining women?

Is that really the way that we want to go here? We wait on the Lord. We bless the Lord Jesus for his provision of gifts and we wait until he provides a gift that meets the primary qualification that he's a man. That he's a one woman man.

He's not a lover of money. He's not a wine-bibber. He's not pugnacious. He's apt to teach.

We wait on the Lord Jesus Christ to provide that for us in lieu of, well, you know, she's pretty good. She could bring it. Okay. Really?

Pragmatism dictates that can never happen. And then finally, in terms of the role of women in the church, worshipers of the triune God. So I've often thought if that's all my job was, is to worship God. Okay.

That's going to occupy all of us for eternity. You know, I'd rather be a doorkeeper in the house of God than dwell in the tents of wickedness. Just sweeping the floors would be great in the new Jerusalem. You know, people talk about that.

Do you think you're going to be close to Jesus or, you know, the sons of Boanerges? Want to get right up there on the right and left? I just want to make it. Worshippers of the triune God is the first and foremost and primary identifier for all of us.

As well, hearers of the word of God, workers of good works. There's great things that women can do in the life of the church. They just can't teach or exercise authority over a man. But again, so can't a lot of men.

Either that they're deceptive, either that they're fools, or either that they're not qualified. God doesn't have an ax to grind against any man in here because he's not an elder. God doesn't have an ax to grind against any woman here because you're a woman. There's specific functions in God's creation that tend toward His glory.

And our job is to identify it, to embrace it, and as new men and women in the Lord Jesus Christ, jump in wholeheartedly and delightfully engage in those blessed things that God has provided for us. Well, let us pray.

Closing Prayer

Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the clarity of the Apostle Paul and for the rock-solid basis of his argument in the book of Genesis. I pray for your blessing upon our church. I pray for our families.

Pray for the church as a whole. to bless us, help us to embrace the things you call us unto, and help us to faithfully persevere in them to the very end. May you be glorified in the life of our church. May you be glorified in the individual families and in the single people. And to all of us, God, just help us to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior and to find our chief delight in worshiping and serving the God of heaven and earth.

And we ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Scripture References

• Genesis 1; 1-2; 1-3; 2; 3; 3:13; 3:15; 9
• Acts 18:24-28
• Romans 5; 13
• 1 Corinthians 11; 11:3; 11:8-9; 14; 14:34-35; 15
• 2 Corinthians 11:3
• Ephesians 5
• Philippians 2:12
• Colossians 3
• 1 Timothy 1:1; 1:6; 1:11-12; 1:18; 2; 2:1; 2:8; 2:9; 2:11-12; 2:11-15; 2:12; 2:13-14; 2:14; 2:15; 3:1-7; 3:1; 3:2; 3:8-13; 3:11; 3:15; 4:6-11; 4:11; 6:2
• 2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15; 4:2
• Titus 2:3-5
• 1 Peter 3; 3:7