Recently the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) removed eight churches from their convention because they had women pastors. They argued that their decision was supported by the New Testament Scripture, but the problem was based on an erroneous translation of those Scriptures into English. Many people have been deceived into believing that the English translations are just as “inspired by God” as the original Koine Greek texts. The wrongly believe that the English translations, particularly the King James Version, is completely accurate when the fact is that is not the case. There are definite problems with all of our English translations.

SBC Support Passage

The SBC used the following passage to defend their decision:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (I Timothy 2:11-15, KJV)

The Mistranslation

In this passage, the word “woman” has not been properly translated into English. The word “woman” is the English translation of the Greek word gune (pron. “goo-nay”), which means both “woman” and “wife.” And just like the Greek, the Hebrew language also has one word – ishah – that means both “woman” and “wife.” However, unlike the Hebrew and the Greek, English has two different words, and when the translators translated this passage into English, they chose the wrong word. It should say the following:

Let the wife learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a wife to teach, nor to usurp authority over her husband, but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2:11)

And then after saying this, he uses the first married couple to illustrate his point.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the [woman/wife] being deceived was in the transgression.

But what does the word “deceived” mean?  In English the word “deceived” means “to cause someone to believe something that is not true, i.e., a lie,” but if we go back to the Garden of Eden to the scene Paul is referring to, we discover that the English definition of “deceived” is not really accurate.

Re-Examining the Genesis Text

In Genesis 3, the serpent initiated the discussion by asking the question, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”  The woman then responds:

From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'”[Bereshith (Genesis) 3:2-3]

Now in this verse, we discover that the woman has added to the commandment of God by saying, “or touch it.”  Now by adding to His commandment, she has created a situation where she could actually “deceive” herself into believing something was true when it was not, as we shall see. This deception did not come from the serpent – but from herself! The serpent then says, “You shall not die;…”  This statement was the only thing that the serpent says that was not true.  The rest of what he says is completely true and confirmed by God later on in the chapter.  He says,

For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. [Bereshith (Genesis) 3:5]

The word translated as “gods” is the Hebrew word ‘Elohim, which could also be translated as “God.” This verse could have been translated as “you shall be as God, knowing good and evil,” which is exactly what God Himself says later on in the chapter. It is then that we read,

And when the woman SAW that the tree was good for food, and that it was PLEASENT to the eyes, and a tree to make DESIRED to make one wise, she took the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. [Bereshith (Genesis) 3: 6]

You can see that her lust for the fruit intensified as she continued to look at it, and then it comes to the point where she then acts on her lust – eats the fruit – and then gives some to her husband who was standing there with her the whole time.  He could have stepped in at any time and stopped the whole thing, but he chose to remain silent and just go along with it.  Many men throughout the centuries, even today, including me at times, see something going on that is not right, but we do not step up and say something, and that is exactly what Adam did in this same situation.

But the majority of the “deception” did not come from the serpent, but it came from the woman herself.  She is the one who told the serpent that if they “eat it, or TOUCH it, they shall die,” and it was her lust for the fruit as she continued to stand there and look at it, that continued to build until she acted on it and picked it from the tree “touching it,” but she did not die when she held it there in her hand, and so she “deceived” herself to believe that if she “touched” it and did not die, then maybe the serpent was correct, and she would not “die” if she eats it, and so she takes the next step and eats it to satisfy herself, and it is at that *point that she sinned.  I am not saying that the serpent was completely innocent in all of this, but he only said one thing that was not true at least physically in the long run, “you shall not die.”

After the serpent, woman and man are judged for the sin. In this chapter, we read,

“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil.” [Bereshith (Genesis) 3:22a]

Isn’t this exactly what the serpent would happen if they ate the fruit?  So how could it be a lie if God Himself confirms it to be true?  God then goes on to say,

…and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from where he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. [Bereshith (Genesis) 3:23-24]

So did the serpent actually lie to the man and woman?  He told them one thing that was not true, but the rest of what he told them was completely true.  So how did the serpent “deceive” the woman, if we use the English meaning of that word to understand the passage in I Timothy 2:11-15?  The word “deceive” in this verse is actually the Greek word apatao (pron. “ah-pa-ah’-o”)[G538], which means “to cheat, i.e., delude :- deceive.” In other words, the serpent “deluded” or “watered-down” the truth by adding one untrue statement.  But for the most part, the woman “deceived” herself.

A Comparison

But when we consider this passage in I Timothy 2:11-15, we can see that it is not actually addressing the question of whether a woman should be allowed to pastor a church – but who should be the spiritual head of the home.  This passage actually corresponds to Ephesians 5, where Paul writes,

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ [Messiah] also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.  But as the church is subject to Christ, so also is the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.  (Ephesians 5:22-24, NASB)

So does this mean that a man can mistreat or abuse his wife, and she just has to take it?  Absolutely not!  He is only saying that just as the Ecclesia (trans. “church”), “the Bride” respects the authority of “Christ” (Messiah) and follows his leadership and teachings, so the wife is to do the same with her own husband.  The problem is that we do not have husbands who are imitating Yeshua by how they live, love and serve their own wives just as Yeshua served his “bride,” by laying down his own life for her.  There are too many husbands who misuse the Bible by using it to “emotionally abuse” and “beat” their wives into servitude; therefore, this idea of “the servitude of wives” does not reflect the teachings of the Bible, but instead, it is an abuse of the Scriptures, just as it is an abuse of the wife.

The Misunderstanding

So it is obvious that Paul is not addressing the issue of whether a woman can be a pastor or not, particularly since in his day and time, there were women rabbis and prophetesses.  But he is addressing an issue that was going on within the congregation there where Timothy was pastoring.  In the first century, these “churches” (Greek Ecclesia) were part of Second-Temple Judaism – not Christianity, since Christianity as a distinct religion didn’t even exist yet.  And at this time, men and women (including husbands and wives) did not sit next to each other but sat in separate areas.  This still continues on to this day in Orthodox Jewish congregations.  Therefore, for wives to be asking their husbands questions during a meeting would be disruptive, so Paul is merely advising these wives to ask their husbands later when they get home – and not be disturbing the service.  He then does what any good Jew would do – he goes to the Torah to support his decision.

Jewish Examples of Women in Leadership

This is just one example of how Christians have taken things taught in the “New Testament” completely out of their original contexts – the Tanakh, Second Temple Judaism, and the history of Isra’el – and misinterpret, misunderstand, and misapply their teachings.  It is obvious that he is not making a blanket statement about women in general in “the church,” but he is addressing a specific situation.  It definitely was not one that would be true in Judaism, even in the Judaism of his day.  For example, the Talmud tells us that there was a man and his wife who were both rabbis, but her decisions about particular cases were more highly valued than his, and her ministry was honored more than his because she had a healing ministry, and he didn’t.  Also, what about the example of Deborah, the prophetess and a judge of Israel who gave her council and decisions to the men of the military who carried them out? (Judges 4:4-9) And what about Huldah, the prophetess?  After Hilkiah found the book of the Torah in the temple, King Josiah sent four of his men who were made up of priests of the Temple and Temple Scribes to go to Huldah to inquire of God.  God told her His decision, and then she told these four men to tell king Josiah what God had told her (2 Chronicles 34:24-30).  And in the “New Testament,” what about Anna, the prophetess, who resided in the Temple courts and spread the word of his birth and spoke to all those who were “looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:36-38).  And what about Mary Magdalene, who was the first to spread the news of His resurrection from the dead?  And, of course, there were the different women who worked with Paul in the ministering of the different congregations.

 The Problem with the SBC’s Decision

So a woman can lead and advise a nation, including its military; seek a word from God and advise the council of a king;  preach the news of Messiah’s birth and resurrection, as well as serve with Paul in sharing and spreading the gospel, but a woman, according to the SBC, cannot teach and lead a church congregation?  There is something really messed up with that conclusion.  It is not one we see the Bible as a whole supporting or teaching.  This is the problem of Christians “cherry-picking” verses or passages, instead of looking to see what the Bible teaches as a whole on a particular topic.

Paul – A Second-Temple Jew

In the first century, when Paul was ministering and writing, there were no church buildings like we have today, nor was there such a thing as the Christian religion.  It did not come into existence until about the beginning of the second century, C.E., after the death of Yochanan (John) the beloved, in Ephesus in 100 C.E.  Yeshua and his movement was, in fact, a part of Second-Temple Judaism.  For example, in the writings of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch from 98 – 117 C.E., he wrote in his “Letter to the Magnesians,”

For if we CONTINUE to live in accordance with Judaism, we admit we have not received grace. (qtd. in The Apostolic Fathers, second ed., p. 95)

And then in a couple more paragraphs, he writes,

Therefore, having become his disciples, LET US LEARN TO LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHRISTIANITY.  For whoever is called by any other name than this one does not belong to God…It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism.  For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which “every tongue” believed and “was brought together” to God. (ibid., p. 96)

The Deception of Christianity’s Origin

Obviously, if Christianity actually began when Christians say that it did with the birth and life of Yeshua the Messiah or even in the Upper Room in Jerusalem during the feast of Shavuot (Pentecost), then Christianity would have been around by this time for about 70 years, so why is he arguing that non-Jewish believers should not “continue” to “live in accordance with Judaism,” but that they should “learn to live in accordance with Christianity” instead?  Historically, both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are Post-Second Temple religions that developed after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., and sometime near the beginning of the second-century, C.E.  According to the “New Testament,” there is no way for Christianity to have existed during the four Gospels or during the time period when most of the “New Testament” was being written since the word “Christian” itself did not even exist at all until Acts 11.  In this chapter, we read,

And the disciples were called Christians FIRST in Antioch. (Acts 11:26, KJV)

This is not telling us that the disciples started calling themselves “Christians” in Antioch, but that the other nonbelievers who lived there in Antioch, Syria, started calling their countrymen who had fallen for believing in this “new Jewish Messiah” as “Christians.”  This word did not begin as a word to identify these people as belonging to a distinct religion as it is used today – “one who adheres and believes in the Christian religion” – but it began as a derogatory slur – a mocking ridicule – an insult of these men and women who were believing this teaching. In much the same way, the phrase “Jesus Freak” was used for the Hippies and street people who were coming to faith in “Jesus” in the United States during the 1960s and 70s. This is actually illustrated in the film, Jesus Revolution (2023), starring Jonathan Roumie and Kelsey Grammer. The word “Christian” is used only THREE TIMES in the “New Testament,” and in each occurrence, it maintains this same “mocking meaning” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Peter 4:16). This name spreads quickly throughout the Roman empire, so that in 64 C.E., this “mocking ridicule” was used by Nero the emperor when he blamed the “Christians” as the ones who had set the fire to Rome, which led to a massive persecution of the Roman believers, including the death of the Jewish leaders,Shi’mon Kefa (Peter) and Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) in 68 C.E.  Two years later, Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E.

“The Way” – The Name of the Early Jewish Disciples

Years after this, the Jewish disciples continued to call themselves “the Way” (Heb. HaDerekh).  In fact, this name is found SIX TIMES in the book of Acts (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).  There is actually no proof from the Scriptures that the Jewish believers ever called themselves by this “mocking ridiculing” name of “Christians,” but they continued to live as Yeshua and his early disciples as Torah-observant Jews.

This indicates the writers of the “New Testament” were Second-Temple Jews – not “early Christians.”  And so anytime people read the “New Testament” from a “Christian perspective,” they have automatically removed it from its original context.  And anytime you remove any piece of writing from its original context(s), you automatically open the door wide to misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and errors, as we see here with the recent SBC decision.

Ecclesia – The People?

We have to understand that the Ecclesia (trans. “church”) was not a building – but it was the people, and the idea of there being only one “pastor” to lead the whole congregation was not in existence yet.  A group of believers would have had several “pastors” or “shepherds” leading and guiding them – not one.  Therefore, the SBC has taken a passage dealing with one context, and they have placed it in a completely different context and misapplied it in an entirely different scenario that did not even exist at the time of Paul.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is obvious from things such as this that Christians – pastors, bible teachers, evangelists, Apostles, etc. – are not teaching us the Bible, but they are USING the Bible – or should I say “MISUSING” and “MISAPPLYING” it – to teach and support their own denominational or personal views and opinions.  This decision by the SBC says more about the views and ideas about those who are leading the Southern Baptist Convention than it does about the writings of Paul.  Perhaps, if these men would go back and learn about Second-Temple Judaism, then they would better be able to interpret and teach people what the Bible actually says, rather than continue to misuse it for their own denominational or personal purposes.