Lesson 04 “Women in the Church” 1 Timothy 2:8-15
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”)
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.)
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
Context: Read 1 Timothy 2:1-3:13 to understand the context of this passage. Then read 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in a more literal or more dynamic version than you usually use.
This section also makes four references to the creation of Adam and Eve. It would be helpful for you to reread chapters two and three of Genesis if you have time. Pay special attention to Genesis 2:7, 18-23; 3:4-7, 11-13.
1. ID: (2:9) What are the key principles for women adorning themselves? Are any of the descriptions of inappropriate clothing relevant today?
2. ID: (2:10) What should accompany a profession of godliness (theosebeia)?
3. ID/WS: (2:11) What are women told to do? In what manner? (Look up the key words.)
4. ID/CR: (2:12) What are women told not to do? (Acts 2:17-18; 18:24-26; Romans 16:1-16; 1 Corinthians 11:3-10; 14:33-37; Philippians 4:2-3: Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2)
5. ID: (2:13-14) What reasons are given for the statements in verses 11-12? Were they timeless or based on the specific situation in Timothy’s church? Why?
6. ID/WS: (2:15) In what sense are women saved (sōzō) in childbearing? (After you have asked the inductive questions and done word studies there are extra helps.) What conditions are added?
The WALK: What should I do?
1. How do we effectively teach young women about principles of modest and moderate dress?
2. Why do people react so strongly to passages regarding gender distinctions and women’s roles within the church?
3. Do these restrictions imply inferiority or lesser ability of women compared to men? (Genesis 1.26-28; 2:18, 20; Psalm 30:10; 54:4; Galatians 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7) How can we affirm women?
4. How important is this issue of women’s roles in the church? Why?
5. What impact does rejecting a historical Adam and Eve have on our approach to the Bible? (Matthew 19:4; Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 1:14)
Going Beyond: 1. Read about “The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism.”
2. What areas of theology are touched on in this passage?
q The Bible (Bibliology) q God (Theology Proper) q The Father (Paterology) q The Son (Christology) q The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) q Man (Anthropology) q Salvation (Soteriology) q The Church (Ecclesiology) q Angels & Satan (Angelology) q Future Things (eschatology)
In recent years, several self-proclaimed evangelicals, or those associated with evangelical institutions, have called into question the historicity of Adam and Eve. It is said that because of genomic research we can no longer believe in a first man called Adam from whom the entire human race has descended.
… Without detailing a complete answer to that question, let me suggest ten reasons why we should believe that Adam was a true historical person and the first human being.
1. The Bible does not put an artificial wedge between history and theology. Of course, Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that is far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical chaff. Such a division owes to the Enlightenment more than the Bible.
2. The biblical story of creation is meant to supplant other ancient creation stories more than imitate them. Moses wants to show God’s people “this is how things really happened.” The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the Ancient Near East.
3. The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104, for example, and you’ll see how different these texts are. It’s simply not accurate to call Genesis poetry. And even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?
4. There is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t set Genesis 1-11 aside as prehistory, not in the sense of being less than historically true as we normally understand those terms. Moses deliberately connects Abram with all the history that comes before him, all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden.
5. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.
6. Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49). Even some revisionists are honest enough to admit this; they simply maintain that Paul (and Luke) were wrong.
7. The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam. The literature of second temple Judaism affirmed an historical Adam. The history of the church’s interpretation also assumes it.
8. Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents.
9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together.
10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together.
Christians may disagree on the age of the earth, but whether Adam ever existed is a gospel issue. Tim Keller is right:
[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . .If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching. (Christianity Today June 2011)
Copyright ©2014 The Gospel Coalition, Inc. All rights reserved.
1. This question is often eclipsed by the more controversial and difficult portions of this text, but is probably one of the more profitable verses (esp. for dads and granddads).
5. The point I am driving at here is that you can’t just write this off as first century cultural and irrelevant to us today.
6. This is one of the most difficult passages in the NT to interpret, so you may want to focus on identifying the unacceptable interpretations.
1. This topic is HUGE in today’s culture. How do we get beyond a dress code to the heart in an effective way with our children and women in the church?
5. This is important. What are the ramifications of denying events and people the New Testament treat as historical.
“10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam”: Note that Tim Keller, who is quoted at the end of the article, is NOT a seven twenty-four hour days of creation man, so his comments here are especially helpful.