When husbands and wives are intended, the context makes it clear, but there is nothing in the context of 1 Tim. 2:9–15 to indicate that husbands and wives are in view. Paul could have easily added words like “your wives” or “your husbands” to clarify that wives and husbands are intended, but we find nothing of the kind. The references to men and women in 1 Tim. 2:9–15 are quite general, which is why the majority of commentators agree that men and women are the subject of the admonition, not husbands and wives per se.

Editor’s Note: The following article is Part II of a response to Christianity Today’s April 2024 cover story on gender and appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Eikon. Parts I and III can be read here and here.
Gordon Hugenberger rightly reminds us in his essay in Christianity Today of the many areas where complementarians and egalitarians agree. In addition, we have all benefited from his excellent scholarship over the years. Still, I would dissent from his claim that 1 Tim. 2:9­–15 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives instead of men and women generally. If we accept Hugenberger’s interpretation, the text doesn’t prohibit women from serving as pastors or from preaching the word when the church gathers for worship. Still, his reading of the text is quite unconvincing. There are decisive reasons for thinking that Paul speaks of men and women generally, not husbands and wives specifically, in 1 Tim. 2:9–15.
Hugenberger’s reading is flawed because the context in 1 Timothy 2 is clearly public worship, not the individual relationship between husbands and wives. When we read 1 Timothy as a whole, the focus in the letter is the public assembly of the church, the right teaching of the word and the refutation of false teachers. Paul often speaks of teaching in the letter, and it invariably refers to what occurs when the church gathers together (1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 4:1, 6, 11, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2, 3). A quick look at the letter verifies that we have a public setting. False teachers are threatening the church (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:3–7), and Timothy is charged to resist their influence (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:18–20), by proclaiming the gospel (1 Tim. 1:12–17; 2:3–7). First Timothy 2:8–15 is followed by a command to appoint overseers and deacons in the church (1 Tim. 3:1–13), and both are offices that relate to public ministry in the church. The Pauline instructions are designed to make the church a bulwark against the false teaching (1 Tim. 3:14–15). Paul immediately returns to the threat of false teaching and the need to resist it (1 Tim. 4). The role of elders is addressed again in 1 Tim. 5:17–25, and the letter ends as Paul emphasizes the importance of resisting false teaching and pursuing what is good and right and true (1 Timothy 6). The idea, then, that Paul addresses husbands and wives in chapter 2 doesn’t fit the aim and purpose of the letter. Hugenberger individualizes and privatizes a text that addresses the church which is gathered for worship and instruction.
Hugenberger claims that the terms used for men and women in the New Testament typically refer to husbands and wives, and thus, in his judgment the same is true in 1 Tim. 2:9–15. That sounds like an impressive argument, but when we examine the matter more closely Hugenberger’s reading fails.
Read More
Related Posts:

UN Resolution 181 (1947) divided Palestine into a Jewish State (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan). Then began a series of wars: Israel’s War for Independence (1948–49), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (the Hamas attack on Israel was carried out 50 years plus one day of the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War), the First Lebanon War of1982, and then the Second Lebanon War of 2006. This is but a partial list of Arab-Israeli conflicts. Why the focus upon history? The Hamas terrorist attack upon Israel reflects a one hundred year history of Arab animosity to the West and sets the context for the seemingly endless conflict over Israeli/Palestinian territory. How quickly we forget.

A number of friends, church folk, and Riddleblog readers have asked about my take on Israel’s 911 (10/7). So, here you go.
It won’t surprise you that my take on the Hamas’s vicious attack on Southern Israel is much different than Greg Laurie’s (“Fasten Your Seat Belts”). A legion of prophecy pundits and “end-times” YouTubers have popped up, many offering wild and bizarre speculation about the tragedy and its role in the end-times. This is what they do. Admittedly, I have not watched or read much of this recent prophecy speculation, but what I have seen (most of which folks have sent to me) is largely a re-hash of prophetic scenarios long-since discredited (by the embarrassing fact that they got it wrong when previously proposed) now re-packed and presented as new material, with the hope that people will forget how wrong the pundits were the last time they made such predictions.
My points for consideration:
1). As for any biblical significance to the horrors inflicted upon Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists, this clearly falls under the category of signs given us by Jesus regarding wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6-8). Jesus did not predict specific conflicts (such as this one), only what he describes as “birth pains” of the end. What happened in Southern Israel falls into the category of “wars and rumor of wars,” with no specific fulfillment of any biblical prophecy regarding Israel. What Hamas did was very much like what Vladimir Putin did in his barbaric invasion of Ukraine. He ignored all conventional rules of war and inflicted savagery upon innocents—the elderly, women and children, and unarmed civilians. Hamas has done the same in Israel. In this we see the depths of human depravity as divine image-bearers are slaughtered merely to satisfy someone’s rage, anger, and territorial ambitions. Jesus told us to expect as much until he returns.
2). It is important that we keep some historical perspective on what happened on 10/7. This is why I chose the picture of British General Allenby entering Jerusalem in 1917. When a Christian British general entered Jerusalem (a holy city for Jews, Christians, and Muslims) it meant the end of the Ottoman empire’s centuries-long rule over Palestine as well as the end of the Islamic Caliphate’s control of the region. But the heavy-handed British occupation helped to set in motion the series of events which sowed the seeds of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict one hundred years ago and which is still with us today.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the rallying cause of early Zionism. With the end of the Great War came the ill-conceived Treaty of Versailles (1919), in which the victorious entente powers divvied up the Middle East into new states which had never previously existed (e.g., Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Kuwait) and which had no real cultural or ethnic unity (see my review of Andelman’s A Shattered Peace).
Then came the Holocaust, which created the impetus for the United Nations to establish a Jewish state in Palestine to which the displaced Jews of the world could emigrate. UN Resolution 181 (1947) divided Palestine into a Jewish State (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan). Then began a series of wars: Israel’s War for Independence (1948–49), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (the Hamas attack on Israel was carried out 50 years plus one day of the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War), the First Lebanon War of1982, and then the Second Lebanon War of 2006. This is but a partial list of Arab-Israeli conflicts.
Why the focus upon history? The Hamas terrorist attack upon Israel reflects a one hundred year history of Arab animosity to the West and sets the context for the seemingly endless conflict over Israeli/Palestinian territory. How quickly we forget.
3). If you are interested in the details of how Hamas was able to pull this attack off, and why the IDF was caught so unaware, here’s a highly recommended discussion of how and why it happened, and where we go from here: School of War — Episodes 93: Michael Doran on the War in Israel and Ghosts of 1973.
4). Many readers of the Riddleblog, long-time White Horse Inn listeners, church friends, and recent converts to Reformed theology may have given up their dispensationalism.
Read More
Related Posts:

James’ problem with the rich is not their money but their master. In serving money they oppressed the poor, ran roughshod over the helpless, and exploited whomever they could for their own gain. Rejecting the model of the Master, they sought to be served rather than serve. 

You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. (James 5:5, ESV)
My guess is that we won’t find James 5:1 in one of those verse-a-day packets: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you” (James 5:1). Yet that verse and the contrast it presents captures the tension we face each and every day as disciples of Jesus Christ, seeking of first importance the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Earlier in his letter, James discourages believers from discrimination on the basis of station. He says they should not give preference in the assembly to a man wearing fine clothes over someone sporting shabby clothing. Beyond the level playing field of all being mired in the same sin and all being in need of the same grace, James levels particular criticism of the rich. “Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?” (James 2:6)
Now as he winds down his letter, James addresses the rich themselves. “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.” (James 5:1–3).
What is James’s problem with those who have wealth?
Read More
Related Posts: