You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free

(Previous page)


Then there is Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 1 Tim. 2:11-14: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” According to Paul a woman should sit in silence and be taught. (Contextually, this is not a prohibition on chattering during sermons, as some allege.) Even if God called her and entrusted His gifts of teaching, prophecy, etc. to her, the woman has no platform from which to speak.

That is absurd!  Yet Paul continued: “I allow not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” And his reason? “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” In reality Paul said: “I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority as a joint-heir of Christ, because even spiritually, she was created a lesser being.  She remains untrustworthy – remember how her mother Eve was deceived?  Therefore her sinful, cursed state still counts against her.”

True, the woman was deceived, while the man sinned knowingly.  But is the woman not forgiven and restored just as the man?  Is she not also a new creation?

“For Adam was first formed”, implies that Paul subjected the woman to the rule, authority, even the possession of all men, not only to that of her own husband. 

This religious-misogynistic-patriarch view has serious, far-reaching implications.

If religious leaders are correct, and males must lord over females in general, it actually implies that women are lesser beings, communal possessions, concubines, and even sexually, men may use and abuse women as they please: Heb. 13:4.

It is therefore not surprising that rape, sexual discrimination and violence against women infected human society as a whole.

But not even among animals do female wolves, for instance, live in a position of submissiveness toward their male equals in the pack - especially not toward males of lower rank and status.  Yet religious misogynists expect women to submit even to strangers, bequeathing ultimate authority to them; submitting to their sinful male dictates and rule.

Or did Paul mean that spiritually, male and female, slave and free, Jew and Gentile now suddenly exist in Christ?  No, if these instructions were translated correctly and male chauvinist religionists are not forcing Paul to speak their words, these strange teachings merely reveal Paul’s religious-misogynistic mind-set, otherwise he would have written: “God does not allow a female to teach, as He did not forgive her, and He will never restore her to manage His creation in His universal plan for humankind again.  The creation principle of Gen. 1:27-28, where God commands joint management of the earth by both male and female, was merely a ‘mistake!’”

No one can think that God will say such a thing.  I cannot even believe that Paul would say such a thing.  God’s New Testament kingdom is a spiritual THEOCRACY, where He gives His gifts as He wills.  He calls whom He wants and He places them where He decides.  The same blood-sacrifice that redeemed males from their sinful state, redeemed females from theirs.  When God looks at His spiritual bride, He sees only His blood-cleansed children: Gal. 3:26-29.

And He uses every one of them as and how it pleases Him: 1 Cor. 12:11, 13, 27-28.

It is not surprising that Paul did not allow women to lord over men.

No believer should lord over another, but in humbleness the one should “esteem the other higher” than him- or herself, and we must all “submit to one another” - in everything that is good and Godly, of course: Eph. 5:21.


In spite of this, Paul allegedly also wrote in 1 Tim. 2:15: “The woman shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

Christ alone saves every one of us through His atoning work in our place, yet Paul wrote that the poor woman must be saved by bearing children – and then only “if they” behaved accordingly.  Even though some Bibles try to explain this text by twisting “if they” to “if she”, it still implies the woman can only be saved by bringing children into this world, and/or if her children behave accordingly.  Fact is, good behaviour as such cannot save anyone, neither the woman nor her children - Rom. 3:23-24.  Even if Paul meant that childbirth will not ‘hinder the woman’s salvation,’ as some of the translations comment, this remains a totally unacceptable remark.

We can never doubt that Paul was a chosen instrument in the hand of God.  He received wonderful revelations and understood God’s kingdom in a miraculous way.

But we can be certain that his religious misogyny did not emanate from God.

The ancient world was ruled by men.

They were all devoutly religious and their deceived leaders led them to believe that God discriminates against women; therefore it is their ‘right’ to do the same.

And if we look at these instructions contextually, it is also clear why Paul, when he taught on leadership in 1 Tim. 3, did not allow women to the post of elder.  Although some see verse 11 as a concession to allow women to the office of deacon, others believe Paul was only referring to the wives of elders, for in his religious, male-dominated world, female elders would have been completely unacceptable.

While God appointed “Deborah as judge over the whole of Israel” during an utterly dark, Old Testament time, Christ called only male apostles during His ministry on earth: Judges 5:7.  This proves that we cannot explain the Theocratic decisions of God.  But logically, it seems that practicality motivated Jesus’ decision.

The man Jesus Christ was a bachelor.  During this extremely conservative age, it would have been socially unacceptable for Him to travel, and closely associate with women, (unnecessarily hindering the spreading of the Gospel).  And after His ascension, it would have been just as unacceptable for female apostles to journey everywhere in order to plant congregations throughout the known world: 1 Tim. 3:7; 1 Cor. 4:9; Col. 3:16; 4:5. 



Even when the Spirit called elders, He apparently did not call females.  Not because God forgot that He “poured out His Spirit on His daughters and His handmaidens.”  Probably, because He knew that during this prejudiced, extremely chauvinist age, the public office of elder (actually elderly, not the hierarchical structure of the church system,) would have been filled with unnecessary hardship and conflict for His handmaidens.  It can also be that the men in charge simply refused to obey the Spirit, even if He did appoint women.  After all, they were just ordinary human beings, brought up in a world, diseased with religious misogyny.

Apparently, by the grace of God, Paul did not cling to his discriminative views — if these were really the mindsets of the Scriptural Paul, and not manipulative inserts of Vatican and Reformed manipulators from behind the scenes of history.

Phoebe is a good example of a “handmaiden,” or as Paul called her, “a [maid]servant of the body of Christ”: Rom. 16:1-3.  From this passage it is clear that she was a female teacher, evangelist, or pastor.  Apparently her name means ‘a radiant minister’.  Phoebe supported, helped and stood by Paul and the other elders, and he commanded the assemblies to “receive and assist her in whatsoever business she has need of.”

In Acts 18:26, Priscilla and her husband Aquila “explained to Appolos the way of God more perfectly.” Here Priscilla, in conjunction with her husband, taught the Word of God to another man.  She could not have done this if God did not grant her His gifts, anointing, and knowledge to do so.

And above all, a spiritual platform of authority from which to speak. 


Read this article from the beginning 

Top  Books





The Dreadful Consequences of the Fall in Eden






New Testament Tithing and Excessive Giving is a Gospel of Greed

How do we know the Voice of the Holy Spirit? 

The Great ‘Deliverance’ Deception 

Can one lose one’s salvation? 


Is it Scriptural to ‘plead the blood of Jesus?