Stop Trying to Prove a Negative: What Paul's Actions Tell Us

I was deep in study, trying to untangle the complexities of 1 Timothy 2, when I found myself getting lost in the weeds of Greek grammar and theological argumentation. I was trying to parse whether Paul's words about teaching and authority were connected or separate, whether one modified the other, and exactly how to interpret each phrase.

That's when the Lord stopped me with words that were almost harsh: "Stop trying to prove a negative."

It hit me like a lightning bolt. I was doing exactly what you can't do—trying to prove that someone didn't say something when I wasn't there to hear the conversation.

The Impossible Question

It's like that classic trap question: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

If you answer "yes," it implies you were beating your wife but have now stopped. If you answer "no," it implies you're still beating your wife. There's no way to win because the question assumes something that may not be true.

I realized I was falling into the same trap with Paul. I was trying to prove he didn't mean what traditional interpretations claimed he meant, but you can't prove a negative. You can't definitively prove what someone didn't intend when you weren't there for the original conversation.

But you know what you can do? You can look at what someone actually did.

The Character Witness Approach

Think about this practically. If someone came to you and said, "Susan Dewbrew believes women shouldn't teach or have authority over men," how would you respond?

You couldn't say, "Well, she never said that," because you weren't with me 24/7 to hear every conversation. But you could say:

"That doesn't match the Susan I know. I've seen her teach mixed audiences. I've watched her challenge male leaders when they were wrong. I've observed her empowering women to step into leadership roles. I've read her books where she advocates for women's equality. Based on her actions and character, that accusation doesn't make sense."

That's exactly the approach we need to take with Paul.

What Paul Actually Did

Instead of getting bogged down in grammatical debates about one disputed passage, let's look at Paul's actual track record with women in ministry:

Romans 16 is like a who's who of Paul's ministry team, and it's packed with women in leadership:

• Phoebe - Paul calls her a deacon (the same word used for male deacons) and says she was "a ruler of many, and of myself also." The word there doesn't just mean "helper"—in other contexts, it means to lead well, to rule effectively.

• Priscilla - She and her husband Aquila worked alongside Paul, and when they encountered the eloquent Apollos, it was Priscilla (mentioned first, which was unusual) who "took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

• Junia - Paul explicitly calls her "outstanding among the apostles." Some translations try to make this a male name (Junias), but the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Junia was a woman apostle.

Throughout his ministry, Paul worked with women as equals:

• In Philippi, Lydia appears to have been the leader of the church that met in her home

• In Corinth, Chloe had a house church and was clearly a leader in that community

• In multiple cities, Paul mentions women who were his "fellow workers"—the same term he used for men in ministry

The Priscilla Problem

Here's what really clinched it for me: Priscilla taught in Ephesus—the very city where Paul supposedly forbade women to teach men.

Paul worked with Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. He left them there to continue the ministry. And when the eloquent, educated Apollos came teaching in the synagogue, it was Priscilla who corrected his theology.

If Paul truly believed women could never teach men, why did he:

• Work alongside Priscilla as an equal partner?

• Leave her in leadership in Ephesus?

• Never correct her for teaching Apollos?

• Continue to commend her ministry in his letters?

The only way to reconcile this is to understand that Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2 were addressing a specific cultural situation, not establishing a universal prohibition.

The Pattern is Clear

When you step back and look at Paul's overall ministry philosophy, a clear pattern emerges:

• He consistently elevated women beyond their cultural limitations

• He recognized and utilized women's spiritual gifts

• He placed women in positions of authority and leadership

• He treated women as intellectual and spiritual equals

Paul wasn't just tolerating women in ministry—he was actively empowering them.

One of History's Greatest Women Liberators

This is why I say Paul was one of the greatest champions of women in human history, second only to Jesus himself.

In a culture where women:

• Couldn't own property

• Couldn't divorce abusive husbands

• Couldn't receive formal education

• Were treated as domestic slaves

• Had no legal rights

Paul was:

• Calling them fellow workers

• Recognizing them as apostles

• Placing them in church leadership

• Encouraging their teaching ministries

• Treating them as spiritual equals

The Real Paul

When you understand who Paul actually was—when you look at his consistent pattern of empowering women—then the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 simply doesn't fit.

It's like trying to claim Martin Luther King Jr. was secretly a segregationist, or that Susan B. Anthony actually opposed women's suffrage. The actions don't match the accusation.

Paul's entire ministry was characterized by breaking down barriers between groups: Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. He was in the business of liberation, not oppression.

Why This Matters

Understanding Paul's true character changes everything about how we read difficult passages. Instead of assuming he suddenly reversed course and started limiting women, we can trust that his words in 1 Timothy 2 were addressing specific problems in a specific context.

This doesn't weaken Scripture—it strengthens it. It shows us a Paul who was pastorally wise, culturally sensitive, and consistently committed to Kingdom principles of equality and mutual submission.

The Evidence Speaks

I don't need to prove that Paul didn't mean to silence women forever. The evidence of his ministry speaks for itself.

His actions were louder than any disputed interpretation of his words. His life was a testament to his beliefs about women's value, dignity, and calling.

When someone's consistent pattern of behavior contradicts a particular interpretation of their words, it's time to question the interpretation, not the character.

Paul empowered women. Paul elevated women. Paul partnered with women. Paul celebrated women in ministry.

That's not the resume of someone who believed women should be silent in church.

Trust the Pattern

So when you encounter difficult passages about women in Scripture, remember: don't get lost trying to prove a negative. Instead, look at the bigger picture. Look at the consistent pattern. Look at what Paul actually did.

And what Paul actually did was liberate women to serve God with their full gifts, full dignity, and full authority as image-bearers of the Most High.

That's the Paul I choose to believe in. That's the Paul his actions reveal him to be.

And that's the God his ministry points us toward—a God who values both men and women equally and calls both to serve in the fullness of their gifting.

The evidence is overwhelming. We just need to be willing to see it.

Sometimes the best way to understand what someone meant is to look at what they consistently did. Paul's actions speak louder than any disputed interpretation of his words ever could.

Blessings,
Susan 😊