Is Christianity Deceptively Selective About the Commands in the Bible?

Question:

The Bible lists things like eating shellfish right along side homosexuality as equally bad, because both are abominations, yet they [Christians] keep eating shrimp while saying homosexuality is wrong. Isn't this kind of selective obedience to the Bible hypocritical?

Answer:

There are three questions here.

1) Why do Christians seem to selectively pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they obey?
2) What is an abomination?
3) Are "eating shrimp" and "homosexuality" really classified together in the Old Testament?

And maybe even a fourth question:

4) Are Christians hypocrites?

The simple answer to the first question is that we are told over and over again in the New Testament that the law, and the commands found in the law, no longer apply to those who believe in Jesus, as His death and resurrection have set us free from the law. This is a central issue for Paul, one that he addresses repeatedly in several letters.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6)

Paul insists that this is a central tenet of Christianity. The law could make us aware that we are not righteous, but it could not make us righteous. It could make us aware of our sin, but it could not cleanse us of our sin. That is why Jesus' death and resurrection were so important.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:20-21)

However, something that becomes clear in Paul's writings on the law is that the moral commandments in the law are simply an expression of God's character, and as such, are eternal. Both Paul and Jesus constantly insist that the moral part of the law is still binding on believers, because the moral commands embody the heart of God that we be holy and loving. Further, just for clarity, virtually every moral law from the Old Testament is repeated in the New Testament.

The part of the law that was ceremonial, such as the cleanliness laws, dietary laws, festivals, sacrifices and so on were intended to point us to Christ, and those were never really intended to be eternal. You can still do them if you really, really want to, but there is not really a point to it any more. They are just a shadow; Jesus has come, and He is the reality that they were pointing to all along. So live the reality, not the shadow.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Thus, none of the dietary commands are binding on believers, but the commands to be truthful, to refrain from adultery, theft, murder, coveting and so on are all still in effect. This means that Christians are not really "picking and choosing" which parts of the Old Testament they want to keep, and throwing out the stuff they don't want to keep. The quick and dirty guideline is this: if it is a moral command, it is still binding (and has been repeated in the New Testament), if it is a ceremonial law (sacrifices, dietary, cleanliness, festivals, etc.), it is no longer required for followers of Jesus Christ.

Second, is an abomination a especially horrible sin?

The Hebrew word usually translated "abomination," תּועבה, means "disgusting, loathsome, nasty, horrible," but here is the really important part: this word appears 117 times in the Old Testament, and is attached to virtually every moral or idolatrous sin in the Bible. Among the sins listed as abominations are (in alphabetical order), adultery, atheism, bestiality, breaking a vow, cheating, creating discord, demon worship, evil schemes, hardening the heart, homosexuality, incest, justifying wickedness, lying, magic, murder, oppressing the poor, pride, shedding innocent blood, theft, and violence. And this is not an exhaustive list.

The point is simply that God finds all sin disgusting. Sin is an abomination to God.

Ironically, despite this common connection in our culture, one of the things not on this list is eating shrimp.

There is a second Hebrew word, שׁקץ, that is used almost exclusively of foods that are ceremonially unclean. It only appears 11 times in the Old Testament, and means, "filthy, dirty, polluted, very unclean." In some translations, such as the KJV, this word is also translated "abomination." This is the word used in the passages where Israel is forbidden from eating shellfish (which would include shrimp).

So are homosexuality and eating shrimp really equated in the Bible? No. Homosexuality is treated as a moral issue while eating shrimp is an issue of ceremonial cleanliness (meaning the ban on eating shrimp has been lifted in the New Testament).

On the other hand, contrary to what some seem to imply, homosexuality is not treated as some especially horrible sin that is set apart in God's mind from all other sins. Sin is sin, and God finds all sin disgusting (an abomination), including that lie you told last week, the time you gossiped back in middle school, and the pencil you stole from work. However, while God clearly finds all sin disgusting, He really does know the difference between something that is truly evil, such as plotting and carrying out a murder, and a victimless sin, such as stealing a paper clip. All are equally sin, but they are not all equally evil. See my post, "Do All Roads Lead to God?" for a more in depth discussion of the difference between "sin" and "evil," and the real meaning of "sin."

So the bottom line is that the Old Testament law has moral commands that are eternally binding on all believers, while it also has ceremonial laws which were always intended to be temporary, point to something greater, and now that the greater, Jesus, has arrived, they are no longer binding on believers. In other words, God Himself has given us permission to be selective in what we obey concerning ceremonial laws.

Theologically speaking, there is  much more to this, but there is no where near enough room in this forum for what God was really doing with those ceremonial laws, and why it is that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," as well as why Paul calls the "fulfilled" law, "the Law of the Spirit of Life."

As for the last question, "Are Christians hypocrites?"

Frankly, in the strictest sense, yes we are. We constantly preach holiness and love, yet are often sinful and selfish. We talk about being set free from sin, yet all too often there is no discernible difference in our behavior from that of any self proclaimed modern pagan. The difference, however, is that most of us are aware that we are imperfect, that we are constantly failing, and that we are unlikely to attain a true moral perfection in this life. We don't claim to be perfectly sinless, we claim to be forgiven, to be washed, and to have access to a God who is, little by little, helping us correct the flaws in our character so that we can sin less and less. And because we are so keenly aware of our own failings, we have no desire to beat you up about yours. We once were where you are now, we have not forgotten it, and we are deeply aware that our current state is due to Jesus, not to anything we did.

A real hypocrite is not the person that Christ is gradually healing who is trying to help you find that same healing for your wounds; a real hypocrite is the person who stands above you bruised and bleeding, claiming to have no injuries of any kind, while castigating you for your cuts and lacerations. The real hypocrite tries to make you feel like you are less so they can be more. The real believer treats you like you are priceless, worth every minute and effort, and that you can become more like Jesus, not more like them.

In other words, the essence of the hypocrite is pride, arrogance and selfishness, while the essence of the believer is humility, humbleness, and selflessness. And we freely admit we are not there yet. 

We who believe in Jesus and have the eternal life He promised are on a journey, and much to our delight, there is room on this bus, right here next to us, for you to join in the journey.

Is it True that Christians Should not Judge?

Question:

I've always heard that Jesus said, "Judge not," but I heard a guy on TV say that was not true, that Christians are commanded to judge others. Do you know which one is right?

Answer:

Both are right.

Once again, in order to understand this answer, we need to define our terms. There are no less than FIVE different meanings for "judge" in the Bible.

First Definition: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises; to determine or declare after consideration or deliberation, to carefully evaluate based on available facts. To Figure out. To Evaluate.

This is allowed!

Then Jesus told the crowds, "When you see a cloud coming in the west, you immediately say, 'There's going to be a storm,' and that's what happens. When you see a south wind blowing, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and so it is. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, yet you don't know how to interpret the present time? Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? (Luke 12:54-57)

Second Definition: To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: to make a judgment in a legal case. 

This is allowed!

"Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, look! Here's your coin. I've kept it in a cloth for safekeeping because I was afraid of you. You are a hard man. You withdraw what you didn't deposit and harvest what you didn't plant.' The king told him, 'I will judge you by your own words, you evil servant! You knew, did you, that I was a hard man, and that I withdraw what I didn't deposit and harvest what I didn't plant? Then why didn't you put my money in the bank? When I returned, I could have collected it with interest.' (Luke 19:20-23)

Third Definition: to form an opinion or make an assumption, particularly a quick judgment without examining all the fact; a snap judgment; often: to form a negative opinion about based on incomplete information ( i.e. “You shouldn't judge him because of his clothing.”) 

This is NOT allowed!

Moses gave you the Law, didn't he? Yet none of you is keeping the Law. Why are you trying to kill me?" The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?" Jesus answered them, "I performed one action, and all of you are astonished. Moses gave you circumcision—not that it is from Moses, but from the Patriarchs—and so you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man perfectly well on the Sabbath? Stop judging by appearances, but judge with righteous judgment!" (John 7:19-24)

This one is simply, make sure you have all the facts before you come to any kind of conclusion. Be fair, give the benefit of the doubt, and treat them like you would want to be treated if you were in their situation.

Fourth Definition: To pass sentence on; condemn

This is NOT allowed!

Therefore, let no one judge you in matters of food and drink or with respect to a festival, a New Moon, or Sabbath days. (Colossians 2:16)

Do not criticize each other, brothers. Whoever makes it his habit to criticize his brother or to judge his brother is judging the Law and condemning the Law. But if you condemn the Law, you are not a practicer of the Law but its judge. (James 4:11)

Fifth Definition: To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.

This is allowed!

Then I saw thrones, and those who sat on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came back to life and ruled with the Messiah for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4)

Samson judged Israel for twenty years during the Philistine domination. (Judges 15:20)

But even when we do the kind of judging that IS allowed, we need to keep the following in mind at all times.

Deal with our own stuff first!

DO NOT address someone else’s sin if you are struggling with a particular sin yourself.

Therefore, you have no excuse—every one of you who judges. For when you pass judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, practice the very same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who act like this is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on those who practice these things and then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or are you unaware of his rich kindness, forbearance, and patience, that it is God's kindness that is leading you to repent? But because of your stubborn and unrepentant heart you are reserving wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay everyone according to what that person has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing good; but wrath and fury for those who in their selfish pride refuse to believe the truth and practice wickedness instead. (Romans 2:1-8)

Do not judge things that God has not clearly spoken on!

God actually allows us to have our own convictions on things, and to have differing opinions from others on issues. Be careful not to get dogmatic on things that God has NOT explicitly addressed. It is OK for others to have convictions or opinions on things that differ from you, particularly on those things that do not relate to the critical, core doctrines of Christianity. Getting in loud, hostile arguments about end times issues, the rapture, worship styles, Bible translation, which denomination is right, and a host of other peripheral issues should not happen among believers. It is OK to discuss or debate differences, but do it with honor and respect.

Accept anyone who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of arguing over differences of opinion. One person believes that he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The person who eats any kind of food must not ridicule the person who does not eat them, and the person who does not eat certain foods must not criticize the person who eats them, for God has accepted him. Who are you to criticize someone else's servant? He stands or falls before his own Lord—and stand he will, because the Lord makes him stand. One person decides in favor of one day over another, while another person decides that all days are the same. Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind: The one who observes a special day, observes it to honor the Lord. The one who eats, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, refrains from eating to honor the Lord; yet he, too, gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6)

Do not judge non-believers by Christian standards! 

I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that. After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren't you? God will judge outsiders.  (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

This means coming to a conclusion about something that someone has done (they lied to me), and even allowing them to face the consequences of that behavior (I do not trust them any more) is NOT the same as condemning them (verbally or socially harassing, humiliating, or injuring them) for that action. For example, I am allowed to recognize that my neighbors are living together without being married, and that is a sin. I am even allowed to let them know that I cannot allow them to sleep in the same room together in my house. 

I am not allowed to call them names, ridicule them for their actions, go on TV and humiliate them, or in any way harass them because they are not living according to a standard they do not recognize or accept. If the topic comes up in conversation with them directly, I will explain to them what God has to say on the matter, including that it is wrong and why God doesn't want them to do it (even including an explanation that God's laws are designed to protect us form harm and liberate us from bondage to sin). In other words, I will witness to them.

But even then, I am not going to call them names or condemn them. No one comes to God because we say mean and hateful things to them. I will continue to love them unconditionally, even as they know I do not approve of their behavior, because they just might come to God if we tell them the Truth in a way that makes it clear we are doing it because we care about them, and we will continue to care about them, even if they continue to do things that are actually bringing them harm.

THIS is real tolerance. Treating people with kindness and courtesy despite disagreeing with them. That does NOT mean I endorse, support or excuse their behavior. I disagree without being disagreeable.

Here is the side of jugding that is not always widely discussed:

We MUST judge the following:

Spiritual leaders (evaluate and protect – be a watchman)

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Dear friends, stop believing every spirit. Instead, test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has become human—and remains so—is from God. But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

Theological Truth (evaluate, correct and protect)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that person be condemned! What we have told you in the past I am now telling you again: If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that person be condemned! (Galatians 1:8-9)

Fellow believers (discern and restore)

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of him. Have nothing to do with him so that he will feel ashamed. Yet, don't treat him like an enemy, but warn him like a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)

And, of course, we must always do the following:

Judge with grace!

Do not have anything to do with foolish and stupid discussions, because you know they breed arguments. A servant of the Lord must not argue. Instead, he must be kind to everyone, teachable, willing to suffer wrong, and gentle when refuting opponents. After all, maybe God will allow them to repent and to come to a full knowledge of the truth, so that they might escape from the devil's snare, even though they've been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

So you absolutely CAN evaluate and draw conclusions about people, situations, and actions. If those actions directly impact your life, you can take appropriate action.  You cannot condemn people for failing, call them names, ridicule them, or in any way harass them. When dealing with unbelievers, it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict, produce guilt, and bring to repentance.

You are allowed to go to a fellow believer and talk to them about something they have done, particularly to bring them to repentance, but make sure you have ALL THE FACTS before you do. Don't charge in condemning them, but get all the facts, and talk to them about what they have done like responsible adults. If they have harmed you personally, follow the guidelines in scripture for dealing with the situation, always being ready and quick to forgive.

It is our job to deliver Truth with love and grace, to be compassionate, forgiving, and kind, and to reflect the character of our God at all times with all people. 

First and foremost, we are supposed to be known by our love and compassion for all, for loving what is good, and for our blameless devotion to our God.

Can Women Be Pastors? Part Two.

Question:

How can a woman be a pastor if women are explicitly forbidden to speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Answer:

As with the 1 Timothy passage, the translation on this one is usually flawed just enough to make it seem absolute, when Paul had no intention of making it as extreme as our translations often imply. Again, I will bold the translation problems. For the sake of context, I have includee verse 33 as well.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This passage has very similar translational issues as the 1 Timothy passage, so some of this has already been addressed.

The first thing we should note is that this passage is set in the context of verse 33, which shows that the issue facing the churches was of disorder and chaos during the meetings. Apparently, some of the women were causing some disruption in the service, and the issue had to be addressed.

As with “teaching” in the 1 Timothy passage above, "speaking" here means “continuously speaking.” It is not a prohibition against ever speaking, but against disruptive, continuous speaking. Further, the Greek word translated “speak” (λαλεω – laleo) is more accurately “converse, discuss, extended conversation.” What is disgraceful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, and engaging in ongoing conversations when they should be paying attention to the service. Again, the construction here indicates that women did speak in church, but they were not supposed to abuse that to the point of becoming a disruption. 

I have already addressed the translation issue with "submission," and the context here is the same. Women need to be respectful and reverent in a church service, which is a fairly obvious issue. 

Further, no denomination in any century has ever taught that women must literally remain silent in Church, as that would prohibit them from singing, prophesying or praying, which is something they clearly did. In fact, Paul gives instructions, in this very same letter, that in a Greek culture, the married women needed to cover their heads when they spoke out in a church service (Jewish culture was the exact opposite, with the men covering their heads during religious ceremonies, and the women leaving their heads uncovered, showing that the whole "head covering" issue is cultural). 

Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved. (1Co 11:4-5)

Now clearly, if women were not allowed to pray or prophesy in church, there would be no need for a rule about keeping their heads covered while they spoke out in a church service. No such instructions would be necessary if women literally kept silent in church. 

Further, if we take this literally, it also means it only applies to married women, as single women had no husbands to ask questions of at home.

Occasionally paraphrase translations, because they can be freer in their phraseology, manage to capture the force of the Greek passage even better than word for word translations. This is one of those verses where a popular paraphrase, The Message, catches the force of this paragraph in 1 Corinthians 14 as concisely as I have seen anywhere.

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.

All difficult passages in scripture should always be interpreted in light of clearer verses elsewhere in the Bible. It is my contention that we should likewise do the same with the these passages, particularly since so much of the New Testament indicates that women were NOT silent in Church, and that they did hold positions of authority (I will address this in Part Three).

These passages should not be taken as absolute warnings about how women are prone to abuse their authority, but should be understood as what they are: isolated circumstances addressing unique problems within a specific cultural setting. The real principle at work here is that, just as Priscila and Aquila operated as a team in ministry (and jointly taught Apollos about Christianity, Acts chapter 18), so husbands and wives should work together in harmony within the body of Christ.

When judging how God views the issue of women in ministry, or in positions of authority within the church, we should always keep this verse in mind: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

When Paul wrote these words to the Galatians, this was the very first time any person in human history made this statement, in ANY context, claiming all people were equal, regardless of ethnicity, status or sex. Paul, and Christianity, were on the cutting edge of human rights in the first century, and unfortunately, the church lost most of that momentum in later centuries.

The bottom-line is that in Christianity, all sincere believers are given equal access to the gospel, to ministry, and to any position of authority. Many believers in the 1850's used Galatians 3:28, among others, in stating that all believers, of all races, whether black or white, slave or free, are equal in the eyes of God. Just as so many of them had the courage to stand up to slavery when it was the law of the land, many of them eventually embraced the whole verse when they granted women the right to be ordained as pastors. Despite how controversial this issue seems to be, the vast majority of protestant denominations now ordain women, as illustrated in this Wikipedia article (it's a long list, but not complete, as the Free Methodist Church, which is where I serve as pastor, ordains women and is not listed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

In America, the average person no longer has a problem with a woman holding a position of authority in the government, yet many believers would forbid a sincere, Christian woman who had just proven her leadership ability as the President of the United States or the Governor of a state from serving as the pastor of a church. This disconnect should not be. Long before any society granted full and complete equal rights to all people, regardless of race, economic status or sex, Christianity was on the cutting edge of civilization by doing exactly that. Our Lord and Savior makes no distinction between races, economic status or sexes, and neither should we.

Can Women be Pastors? Part One

Question:

I'm so tired of American Christians just ignoring the Bible when it suits their needs. Take your church [Free Methodist] for example. You ordain women; isn't this a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where Paul clearly says that women cannot teach or have authority over men?

Answer:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

This is the over-riding principle that should be used when trying to understand how Christ views believers. This verse makes it clear there are no boundaries or restrictions based on race, culture, economic status or sex when it comes to serving Christ. Most believers have no problem accepting this verse, right up until we get to the part about there being neither male nor female in Christ. They, as you, believe this principle is restricted by two passages in the New Testament which appear to prohibit women from being in positions of authority in the church, and they cannot understand how those verses can be interpreted any other way. These two verses are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

In Part One of my answer, I shall address 1 Timothy; in Part Two I shall address 1 Corinthians; and in Part Three I shall examine the full biblical picture of women in authority.

I propose that, due to mistranslation and misapplication, these two verses have been applied improperly, and that once they are understood properly, we see that not only is there no scriptural barrier to women in authority, but when understood correctly, they actually assume women will be in authority, and provide careful warnings to make sure that wives in authority within the church do not abuse that authority with respect to their husbands.

A womanA should learn in quietness and full submissionE. I do not permit a womanA to teachB or to assume authorityC over a manA; she must be silentD. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the womanA who was deceived and became a sinner. But womenA will be saved through childbearing--if theyA continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

There are five problems with the way this verse is usually translated, which I have bolded and marked. 

A) To whom is this passage addressed?

B) Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

C) Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

D) Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

E) Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

So the first translational problem is, "To whom is this passage addressed?"

In Greek, there is no separate word for husband and wife: ανηρ (aner - “man, husband”) and γυνη (gune - “woman, wife”) are used for both, and the exact meaning must be determined from context. For example, just fourteen verses further down in 1 Timothy 3:14 we find this verse: “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well,” where ανηρ and γυνη are translated “husband” and “wife” respectively.  

So what does the context tell us?

First, Paul compares them to the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve. Granted, this alone would not be enough to know for sure (as they are BOTH the first man and woman AND the first husband and wife), but there are more clues.

Second, Paul speaks of these "women" that he is addressing as giving birth to children. In other words, these are not women in general, but clearly, married women (Paul would never assume that single Christian women would be giving birth). 

Third, in verse 14, the Greek does not include the word "woman," but uses pronouns, and literally says, “SHE [singular] will be saved through childbearing if THEY [plural] continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 

Since Paul is clearly addressing each woman individually with the singular in the first part, the plural in the second part cannot be a reference to women in general. That would literally mean that each woman will be kept safe if, and only if, ALL women continued in faith, love and holiness. It should be obvious that Paul did not intend that meaning, so the only plural reference that makes sense here is “she and her husband.”

Given this context, it is far more likely that Paul was intending this to be about how wives should treat their husbands when the wives are in positions of authority (which is a much more likely scenario of abuse), not about men and women in general. 

So with this first translational error corrected, the passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to teach or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 

(1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

So the first thing that should be noted here is that context strongly suggests this passage is not about a general rule concerning all women, but is addressed specifically to husbands and wives, and specifically how wives in authority should treat their husbands.

The next translational problem is Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

When a prohibition is absolute (“do not do this, ever”), Greek uses the Aorist tense.[1] 

For example, in James 2:11 we read:

For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Adultery and murder are never allowed, under any circumstances, and James reflects this absolute prohibition by placing the commands “do not commit adultery” and “do not murder” in the Aorist tense.

If Paul had intended this prohibition against wives teaching to be absolute, he would have used the Aorist, as James did concerning adultery and murder. However, Paul used the Present tense, which places this command in a completely different light. The tense he chose is best translated, “I do not allow wives to teach husbands continuously.” By choosing this construction, Paul is actually stating that some wives did teach their husbands, it is just that they should not be doing it constantly, which is what he advises for all believers in his letter to the Corinthians: 

For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:31)

Adding this correction to our passage, it now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The third translational problem Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

The word for “authority” in the New Testament is εξουσια (exousia). There are three Greek words that can be considered synonyms of this word (addressed in footnote [2] below), but the Greek word used in this passage in Timothy is not one of them. εξουσια is used of all levels of authority, including soldiers in the military (Matthew 8:9), the civil authority of human leaders (Luke 20:20), the spiritual authority of church leaders (2 Corinthians 13:10), the authority of Jesus over all of creation (Matthew 28:18), and when the Bible says that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1). 

However, Paul does not use εξουσια (or any of the synonyms of εξουσια) in this verse. In fact, the Bible does not forbid women from exercising authority (εξουσια) over men! Not even once! Let me state that again: No where in the Bible are women forbidden from exorcising εξουσια over men. No where.

So what does this passage forbid? Believe it or not, it forbids women who have authority from being abusive towards their husbands. In this passage, Paul does not use εξουσια, or one of its synonyms, but a completely different word that only appears ONCE in the entire New Testament: αυθεντεω. When a word only appears once in the New Testament (which happens over 2200 times), scholars must go to other Greek texts, both religious and secular, outside the Bible, to find out for sure what the word means.

An examination of the evidence reveals something shocking: it does not mean “usurp authority” as it is rendered in the KJV, nor is it “authority” as in most modern translations. So what does it mean? An examination of every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare) in every available Greek manuscript from 200 years prior to Paul to 100 years after Paul yields an astonishing discovery: it is used almost exclusively of murder, suicide, or abusive or violent action against one’s self (suicide) or against a family member or relative.[3] This meaning fits perfectly with the context of this verse being about unacceptable behavior within a family unit: how a wife should treat her husband. Which is why the ISV translates this verse: “Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate violence towards a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.”

So why is it usually translated "authority"? Because usage gradually changed its meaning over time, and almost 500 years after Paul wrote his letter it came to mean "autonomous, illegitimate authority." During the time when Paul used this word, however, that is NOT what it meant.

This is important to understand: by using this word, Paul is not really saying anything about authority, he is simply admonishing wives to refrain from any actions that could be abusive toward their own husbands. If Paul had meant women had no authority over men at all, he would have used εξουσια.

Adding this new information, this passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to be abusive in any way toward her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fourth translational problem is Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

The Greek word translated "quietness" in verse eleven and “silence” in verse twelve is ͑ησυχια (hesuchia), and primarily means "quiet tranquility," not literal silence. Although it can indicate being vocally quiet, even then it primarily references the state of the spirit, not the mouth.

For example, note how it is used in this passage:

For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12)

Here, ͑ησυχια is translated “quiet fashion.” This was not a command to maintain silence when you work, but to be a productive person who refrained from causing trouble. We should be a source of strength, not discord, to those around us. One of the best ways to tell how Paul intends it to be understood is by checking how he uses ησυχια earlier in the same letter.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (I Timothy 2:1-2)

A mere ten verses before making his statement about wives being silent, Paul uses the same word. No one would make the argument that Paul was telling Timothy that a truly godly life was one where we never spoke, but rather, he was encouraging us to live lives in which we are not a source of strife and conflict with others. As these verses show, Paul's primary point is that women, and the rest of us for that matter, should not allow ourselves to become a source of discord and conflict within the church, but rather, examples of quiet strength and humility. This is also one of the reasons that the more recent edition of the NIV changed their translation of this word in verse 12 from "silent" (in the 1984 edition) to "quiet" (in the 2011 edition).

With this in mind, this passage should now read:

A wife should learn calmly and in full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fifth translational problem is Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

Every language has words whose concepts are unique to that language or culture, and for which no other language has exact equivalents. The word translated “full submission” in 2 Timothy 2:11 is one such word. There is no exact English equivalent for ͑υποτασσω (hupotasso), so it is always a struggle to translate it correctly.

Although there is an underlying idea of submitting to the will of another, this word reflects a voluntary submission that arises from the tremendous respect and admiration because of that person's wisdom and leadership, not because they are a ruler over you. The over-riding concept is not about obeying someone, deferring to their decisions or will, or even letting them make the decisions. The strongest underlying idea is actually one of tremendous respect that is shown by supporting, encouraging, or even holding someone up so that they don't collapse. It is mostly about an attitude of respect, honor and support, not about decision-making or obedience or even deference to the decisions of someone else.

One of the best scriptures for illustrating the real meaning of this word is Ephesians 5:21: "Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God."

Clearly, this cannot be about obeying, being superior, or having authority over someone, as this is something that we are supposed do to each other. What we can do is hold one other in such high regard that we are constantly treating each other with respect and honor while encouraging, supporting and lifting each other up. This is something that clergy and leaders can and should do to those placed under their authority.

A more accurate translation for this word, particularly in this context, would be "respect," not "full submission."

Thus, it is my opinion that a more accurate translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be:

A wife should learn calmly and respectfully. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. So she will be kept safe through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

Far from forbidding women to have authority, this passage is about women who do have authority, but are commanded not to abuse that authority within the confines of their own families, particularly with their husbands. If a woman is in authority within the church, that does not change the simple fact that her husband is still the head of the house.

Footnotes:
___________________________________

[1] Prohibitions occur in the Subjunctive or Infinitive (i.e. Matthew 5:34, 36, 42; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 2:22; James 2:11), and the Future Indicative (i.e. Matthew 4:7; 5:21, 27, 33; 19:18; Romans 7:7; 13:9). The difference between them is subtle. The Aorist Subjunctive or Aorist Infinitive place a little more emphasis on the prohibition itself, and tend to be very specific. A prohibition against adultery using the Aorist Subjunctive could be translated “do not commit adultery - ever!” The Future Indicative places more emphasis on how one should live from this day forward, as a normal part of our daily life, and tends to be more general. The corresponding command in the Future Indicative could be translated (over emphasizing the effect), “you shall not, from this day forward, commit adultery.” So the Future indicative would be more in line with "Go and sin no more," while the Aorist is more in line with, "Do not sin!"

[2] There are a few synonyms with similar meanings: κυριότης is a derivative of the Greek word meaning "Lord," and strictly speaking, means "Lordship, dominion, rule." This is used almost exclusively of the spiritual authority of God, demons or angels, and appears in Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 2:10; and Jude 1:8. ἐπιταγή is the issuing of commands, and is not authority itself, but is something that someone who has authority is allowed to do. This word appears in Romans 16:26; 1 Corinthians 7:6, 25; 2 Corinthians 8:8; 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:3; 2:15. ὑπερέχω means "to be superior in rank, class or attitude," or "to govern" and appears in Romans 13:1 (where it is connected to εξουσια to produce "governing authorities"); Philippians 2:3; 3:8; 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13.

[3] See Betty Talbert’s thesis (for her Master’s degree in Apologetics) “The Meaning of Authenteo and its Implication in Translating I Timothy 2:12” She examines every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare), from 200 years before and 100 years after Paul wrote, tracing it's gradual change from "kinsmen murder" or "suicide" 200 years before Paul to something closer to "familial violence or abuse" by Paul's time.