1 Timothy 2:15 going deeper into the results of the prohibition
1 Timothy 2:15 has been one of the most puzzling verses to decipher throughout church history. One of the difficult things in interpreting this verse is the translator’s rendering of some difficult grammar. Some translations leave out some of the grammar that is necessary to come to a correct interpretation. How can we claim to know what Paul meant in this passage if we leave out some of the key inspired grammar?
Here are some of the particular grammar issues that Paul presents in 1 Timothy 2:15 –
- Paul switches from singular feminine to third person plural. Since it is improper grammar to allow both singular and plural to refer to the exact same person(s), then “she” cannot be the exact same thing as “they”.
- Paul uses a unique form of childbearing by using a definite noun and not a verb
- “The childbearing” is singular not plural
- The grammar is future tense with a conditional clause so the “she” in question cannot be someone who is dead at the time of Paul’s writing.
Many of the translations of this difficult verse move into interpretation rather than just translation in an effort to help people understand Paul’s hard saying, but in doing so they leave out some of the inspired grammar that actually would conflict with their interpretation. Without the presence of all of the inspired grammar any English translation of 1 Timothy 2:15 is going to be much harder to understand Paul’s thought process. For example some translations leave out the singular so that it appears Paul is talking about all women. Others leave out the plural so that it appears that Paul is talking about a generic woman. Some change the singular noun to childbearing as plural as if the birth of all children is in view and some also leave out the definite article as if childbearing is concerning any child and any birth without any particularity.
Other translations make a change from the inspired preposition dia (meaning “through”) and switch it with the preposition for “in” so that it is “in childbearing” not “through childbearing” as if it is the childbearing itself that saves rather than something that comes through the vehicle of childbearing. At least one translation changes the conditional “if” to the word “assuming” so that “she will be saved…if…” is changed from a conditional statement to an assumption that all women will want to continue in the faith.
Lastly one version, The New International Reader’s Version also removes the logical contrastive conjunction so that the verse is not connected to the previous verse but rather is asking a question instead of having Paul make a conditional statement.
1 Timothy 2:15 (NIrV) Will women be saved by having children? Only if they keep on believing, loving, and leading a holy life in a proper way.
The most faithful of all translations to the literal Greek grammar is Young’s Literal Translation that renders the verse:
1 Timothy 2:15 (YLT) and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
If we take the literal words written by Paul we come up with the thought that the bad news about “the woman” (vs 14) as “being” in transgression (perfect tense meaning a completed action which has a state of being that exists in the present in relation to the writer) is going to change with a conditional promise in verse 15. In verse 15 Paul says that “but/or and”and this is a logical contrastive conjunction that suggest an oppositional thought or relationship to the word, phrase or clause to which it is connected. So while the continued state of sin is brought out in verse 14, the contrast to that is a positive outlook about her salvation. Therefore “she shall be saved” is a positive promise. But “she shall be saved” is also future tense so “she” cannot be referring to a dead Eve but must be referring to someone else.
In “she shall be saved”, Paul uses the same Greek term (sozo) that he exclusively uses in his epistles to mean spiritual salvation. Thus spiritual salvation is the normal and natural way to interpret Paul’s usage of “sothesetai” (sozo) in 1 Timothy 2:15.
The way that “she will be saved” is “through” something. “Through” here means a marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby something is accomplished or affected, by, via, or through. Therefore the childbearing is not the cause of salvation but the instrument that is used to bring the salvation “through” to the one who is in sin. The instrument that is used for salvation is clearly shown in Philippians 2:5-8 –
Philippians 2:5–8 (NAS)
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
The vehicle is taking upon Himself the likeness of a man through the process of conception and birth. The salvation is the death, burial and resurrection of the one who came through the vehicle of conception and birth. The conception and birth is like a portal that was the vehicle to bring the sin-bearer from heaven to earth in the form of the Kinsman redeemer.
Paul continues in saying that “she will be saved through the childbearing” or “the bearing of (the) child.” It is not any entry into the world of any child. It is a particular entrance with the definite “the” and a particular child whose flesh was the vehicle through whom salvation could come for all those who are caught in sin.
Next Paul says that “she will be saved…if” The “if” is an adverbial conditional conjunction which introduces a condition that must occur before another action or event can occur.
As part of a conditional clause this conjunction introduces the protasis (the if element of an if … then statement). (Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology)
The conditions that are stated replicate the things that the false teachers were straying from that are listed in 1 Timothy 1:5-6.
1 Timothy 1:5–6 (NAS)
5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,
If a woman has been caught in deception and she has strayed from a godly love from a pure heart, strayed from a good conscience and strayed from a sincere faith, these are things must be turned back to in order for her to stay within the boundaries of the true faith.
The last thing to point out where Paul has made a clear condition is that “they” are to work through these conditions for “she will be saved…if they…”
The need for a helper to bring one to faith in Christ is never more crucial than in the issue of deception, for the truth of the matter is that the deceived rarely walk away on their own. The lure of deception is so strong that without help, the trap of the lie will keep the deceived in bondage. The one who knows the truth but who has been silent in correcting the error must now step up to the plate to be a major factor in encouraging the woman who is in sin. His encouragement will help her to step away from the deception and into the light of the truth.
The next question is regarding whether Paul is giving a solution to the problem of a particular false and deceived teacher or whether he is describing the nature of a particular false teaching. I would like to explore these options to see which fits the passage in this one verse.
The letter that Paul wrote to Timothy was written concerning the problems in the Ephesian church. In the city of Ephesus was a cult-like belief in Artemis the goddess of virginity, women’s concerns including childbearing, the hunt and the underworld. Many came to see her as such an important part of that culture that people gave her great loyalty and a temple was built in Ephesus in her honor. Virginity was especially emphasized in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: only virgins and men were permitted access and married or sexually active women were excluded under penalty of death (see documentation here). Since women called on the many breasted Artemis to help with childbirth, Paul’s words about the childbearing are thought to be written in such a way as to be refuting a myth about the Ephesian goddess Artemis but is this really what Paul had in mind?
I would like to submit that it is highly unlikely that Paul was appealing to a particular myth about an Ephesian deity in verse 15 because of the specific grammar found in the verse. While the myth was that Artemis oversaw childbirth and kept women safe during this precarious time, Paul wasn’t talk about keeping a woman’s physical life safe in the act of giving birth, but rather his grammar shows that in verse 15, Paul is referencing the bearing of one child and salvation is not being physically saved from the perils inherent in giving birth to children, but rather it is spiritual salvation from sin through the agency of the coming of One who became the source of our spiritual salvation. The genitive bearing of child determines something that belongs to the child as its source and no emphasis is put on the woman as source at all. Salvation is not coming through the mother or by keeping the mother physically safe, but through the agency of her child’s coming.
If Paul was creating a connection between a false teaching and a myth that associated protection during child birth to the help of the goddess Artemis as a woman’s physical savior and Mother of all, then he failed to use the proper grammar for that teaching. He should have used a verb instead of a noun and he should have used the plural “women” who would experience maternal protection rather than a singular “she”. Rather than referencing all women and feminine protection from harm during childbirth, Paul used a term that he exclusively used for spiritual salvation in all of his epistles. That goes against the grain of a multi-breasted gynecological helper. Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy 2:15 takes the meaning of salvation in a completely different direction.
In addition, if verse 15 is all about refuting a false teaching regarding the one who women are to look to for help during labor, then the specific grammar of verse 15 makes no sense in that context. Who is the “she” and who are the “they” and what does this grammar change have to do with protection from child birthing problems? The conditional promise using both the singular and plural grammar simply doesn’t fit with a refutation of Artemis as a goddess midwife. I have just never seen a satisfactory explanation for a connection between verse 15 and the myth of Artemis. But is it possible that there is a connection between verses 13 & 14 and this goddess myth? We will have a look at that question the next post.
*note I have removed one relatively small point from my post as I received correction about an error that it included. I stand corrected as I want only to hold fast to what is true.
258 thoughts on “1 Timothy 2:15 going deeper into the results of the prohibition”
correction: those are not breasts and Artemis was not the goddess of virginity, she was the goddess of All biological functions of women and Then some. One of the more Powerful of the female pantheon,
and those aren’t breast, they are Testicles of bulls, representative of men. Her skirt is bound, with window-chambers of three dog like creatures in each.
and Yes without a shadow of doubt Paul was referencing to the Rituals and the FEAR women had in regard to childbirth–Artemis,
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Artemis_at_Brauron#The_wrath_of_Artemis
scroll up to read all
How do I know, I am an RA survivor, both sides of family, cult of Venus, Masonry [Egypt, Kali, the Pantheons, etc–33rd degree, Celts] and they are yes the foundation of our own GOVERNMENT, the City on the Hill [high place], my birthplace, Washington D.C.,
and I am STILL dealing with the aftermath–Isaiah makes perfect sense to me–all I’ll say on the matter, well, except, check out the mural at DIA airport and the new statute, the god of death/Egypt, there. Illuminati ring a bell? [it’s not just a conspiracy theory–and yes, one parent, family works for the government, ok so]
and it wasn’t that ‘she is saved IF she has children’ but she won’t lose her salvation if she doesn’t appease Artemis…
it’s similar to the FEAR of Lilith in ancient societies [including Hebrew and Slavic because Lilith was believed to be a demon goddess who would kill children if there wasn’t an amulet, that belief is still very strong among many Slavs today].
Jane
edit, by bulls I mean stags, stag deers, sorry…oh, and on the site, click Brauron, it gives more details about the rituals,
which included, at least referenced, cutting the throat of a man, I do know, the pantheon goddesses [in all ancients] were also connected to the War gods, why they are called fertility goddesses and war gods. They are a hierarchy but work towards common goals, etc., and cover all aspects of life, etc.
The Old Testament sheds a lot of light if you read/do thorough study on ancients [including Mayans, Olmec, Inca] rituals and then go and read the OT, you can piece it together there. [though there is some differences between the ‘sky’ pantheon [heavens], the ocean/or under earth and then the earth [serpent, most of Southern Cone and/some in Africa-animist, have more of a hierarchy centered around the serpent-except Kali/Hindu, from Aryans who formed the caste system, back in B.C., both Hindu and the Incas and Mayans go as far back as B.C. during Ramses Egypt, the others came later, after the fall of Sumeria/split of Israel-Judah, in later B.C., OT].
Jane
Jane
Jane,
Some have merely speculated that the “bumps” are Artemis are testicles, but they are not in the right place for those organs. 😉
The article that I linked so said that Artemis was the goddess of women’s concerns as well as the goddess of virginity. You will have to take up your disagreement with that author as their article is a master’s thesis on religious history of ancient Ephesus. If you want to let the author know that you know more about the subject of Artemis than Holly Hayes (the author) does, perhaps you can take it up with her.
My point is that 1 Timothy 2:15 has nothing whatsoever to do with Artemis and that Paul’s grammar would have to be different to make Artemis a part of verse 15.
Thanks Cheryl for a very thorough treatment of 1 Tim 2:15.
You said,
“she shall be saved” is also future tense so “she” cannot be referring to a dead Eve but must be referring to someone else.”
I mentioned this to a comp friend once and he said that Eve’s salvation can still be correctly viewed as future, so this particular argument wasn’t a strong one. He has had much more trouble with all the other arguments you present on this post and elsewhere that we are dealing with a specific Ephesian woman.
craig, #4
It is impossible for it to be about Eve. Not only is she dead, but because she is dead, she can no longer continue life in faith, love and holiness with her husband.
TL,
Very true. This, along with other arguments he had no answer for and is still thinking for some. I am just speaking of the particular bit that in one sense, believers who have died could still have their full salvation in the future. I had to concede that I think that is true.
Craig,
I would ask your friend for a verse to prove that spiritual salvation is still possible for dead people. Claiming a view isn’t a proof.
If salvation is possible after death then why does the Scripture say:
The Bible doesn’t say that it is appointed for men to die once and after this you will be saved if in the world of the dead you continue in faith, love and holiness and self control…. Does this make sense? It is one thing to say that the argument that the future tense cannot apply to a dead woman is not a strong argument and and it is completely another thing to show from the Bible that salvation is said to be possible after death “if”….
Your friend cannot claim that it is possible for a dead person to experience future salvation by merely stating it. There must be a strong support from the Scriptures. Is your friend a Catholic who believes that doing good works on behalf of the dead and/or prayers of the saints will cause the dead person to experience salvation? If not, I have no idea where he would get such an idea since it is foreign to Scripture.
The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. As him for his proof.
Craig,
The thing that Christians will receive in the future (even the dead ones) is the ransom of the body, not spiritual salvation.
The redemption of the body is not called salvation. Is this what you were thinking of?
He is thinking of christians who have died. He is an evangelical, bible believing christian. He would argue that the bible uses the term salvation sometimes in an eschatalogical sense (I think that is the correct expression), looking toward the final judgement.
I would need to do some research to know if he is correct, but it sounded reasonable to me.
He realises that even if that is true, he can’t explain the rest of the verse and is thinking about it before he gets back to me.
Thanks for a very clearly explained post Cheryl! I appreciate your careful explanation of the grammar and the way you have put it together. It makes it easy for a ‘b’ grade (probably ‘C’ if we are being honest!) Greek scholar to follow.
I am constantly amazed by the interpretation used in translation resulting in the huge difference iamongst translations as people ‘guess’ the meaning that makes sense to them. I remember my very first Greek class and another student sitting next to me asked if theology influences translation. He was given an answer by the lecturer that would have made a politician proud. It was not far into the lesson that he had cause to say to me, “So theology does influence our translation”!
Craig,
The only “future” salvation that I know for believers is an extension on the salvation that they already have. For example:
In this passage it says “he himself will be saved” and that is future tense, but the context shows that the person is already saved as verse 10 and 11 shows that our “building on the foundation” is building on Christ. When a man’s works are burned up, the foundation remains which is Christ and he has at that time the same salvation that he had before his works were tested. There is nothing in this passage about “if” he will be saved, but if he will be rewarded or not. So in context the “future” salvation is the continuation of what one already has (the foundation of Christ). This is not like 1 Timothy 2:15 where there is a situation of “if” she is saved or not and what is necessary to make sure that she will be saved. For the man who stands before God with his works burned up, there is nothing that is to be done to save him. He arrives saved and he stays saved, but his works do not remain for a reward.
How do we compare this to Eve? We don’t. She is either saved or she is not. If she is not saved, nothing that she or we can do will change that. No more “remaining in the faith” will make a difference for her as a dead person.
So is the testing of the works what you were thinking about? If so check out the context and you will see that it is not a future conditional salvation. It is a future continued salvation without rewards (or with rewards for those whose building on the foundation survives).
Thanks Pastor Dave! You know it really irks me when translators put their own belief system into what should be a literal translation. When I read the translation of the Bible, I want to know what the Bible says, not what some person thinks God meant to write. I find it very helpful to go back to the original to try to work out for myself what God said. I want to handle the Word carefully.
Craig,
I sure would be interested in your friend’s answers to the challenges of verse 15. It is not often that we get a complementarian viewpoint here because so few comps speak out when they are hearing something they have never likely heard spoken in their comp circles. If you feel free to share his “answers”, that would be a marvelous challenge. And thanks again for all the questions that you have asked here. These are things that really get the ball rolling because it causes all of us to have to think and reason from the Scriptures!
Cheryl,
I think the main point that he is saying, and that I concede is that the bible says that we are saved in one sense when we believe the gospel but we can also in another sense look forward to our future salvation. I think the passage you quoted from 1 Cor 3 confirms this. A man who is already saved “will be saved” in the future.
In this sense, my comp friend says Paul could be saying Eve “will be saved”. Someone can be dead and yet “will be saved” in the future. So it is not the fact that Eve is dead that means v 15a can’t refer to her, it is the fact that she is dead AND her salvation is conditional on “they” doing something. So your statement
“she shall be saved” is also future tense so “she” cannot be referring to a dead Eve but must be referring to someone else.”
is not quite true as it stands. The “AND” above is critical to the argument.
It is the “AND” that has my friend stumped. He admits that at the moment, and is still thinking.
Craig,
I understand your point, however what I am saying is that the Bible doesn’t ever use the term “will be saved” for dead people. The reference that I gave in 1 Cor. 3 is not about the dead. It is about a living person appearing before the judgment seat. I do grant you your point that the argument is strengthened by the conditional statement. However I am not alone in believing that the future tense proves that this is not talking about a dead person.
Cheryl,
Interesting point about John MacArthur. My friend does hold his views in high esteem.
I think the issue we are discussing is probably very minor in nature – my friend has more than enough problems to deal with even if I concede this point to him.
I only pursue it for the sake of precision and accuracy.
Concerning 1 Cor 3 you said,
“1 Cor. 3 is not about the dead. It is about a living person appearing before the judgment seat.”
Wouldn’t there have been many people, including Eve, who would have died before this judgement? – or does that get into differing views about the second coming, milleniums and judgements? If it does, I think I have enough to learn about without that one too just at the moment 🙂 But if you have a simple answer, it seems to me that any person who has died and is a believer “will be saved”.
I just checked a concordance. I think these verses express the idea.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God’s wrath through him.
1 Cor 5:5 are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
So I could legitimately say that my grandmother (who is now dead), who was a godly, christian woman “will be saved” from God’s wrath and her spirit “will be saved” in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Let me know if I am totally on the wrong track.
When debating with people, I just like to be able to distinguish between things that PROVE my point and those that are just CONSISTENT with it.
Craig,
I would just like to make it clear that point we are “debating” is a very minor point and in the end we are saying the same thing.
As far as 1 Cor. 3 the person standing before the judge is alive even if he/she was dead since the resurrection would have happened. The future is stated as a future time past his works being tested. The person is a Christian since they are standing at the judgment of the believer and they are alive since the resurrection has happened (or they never died). They are already in a position of completed salvation but their works are now tested. So for that person the future “will be saved” is nothing in addition to what they already are before their works are tested. They were, they are and they will be saved without any addition or change. i.e. They are saved from the wrath of God no differently before they came to the judgment, they are saved from the wrath of God at the judgment and we are confident that all Christians after the judgment has been made will be saved from the wrath of God. Is there any difference at all one moment before the fire is set to the works and one minute after? No. Because a saved person is always saved from God’s wrath.
So let’s have a look at this verse:
Is this verse saying that we are now justified but right now we are not saved from God’s wrath but we will be saved? Or is it saying that being justified we are safe in the shelter of His wings and in the future that solid place of safety will stay even through the judgment of our works so that we will never face God’s wrath? I would think that the latter is true. That our salvation from God’s wrath is now and into the future and that never changes into eternity.
Yes. However you could legitimately say that she already was saved from God’s wrath before she died and her spirit was already saved before she died. I don’t think that we can say that a saved person’s spirit is not saved right now.
As far as Paul’s quote about the one turned over to satan:
His actions showed that he was not living in salvation for the Scriptures say that those who continue to practice sin are not walking in the light. This is a man who was living as a wicked man and with no repentance. Paul delivered him over to satan so that he would have consequences of his sin so that he would turn from his sin in repentance. Then and only then would his spirit be saved. At this point, though, he may have been a believer, but he was living in unrepentant sin so was outside the camp by his sin. Paul said that he “may” be saved in the future if he was destroyed here so that he would repent.
The question is whether our spirits are saved right now? I believe thy are and the only thing we await for is the redemption of our body which has not yet happed. But the salvation of our spirits is here for those who are in Christ and that salvation will continue (not be something new) in the future. I believe that the future tense is used as an encouragement not to fear what the future holds regarding God’s wrath.
Again, it is only a small point of difference and in the end we believe the same.
Also, Craig, I have no problem that you conceded the point to your friend. Conceding that point doesn’t change the problems he will have in the passage because it won’t make the conditional sentence go away, right? 😉
One other point, Eve is not experiencing God’s wrath right not only to be “saved” from God’s wrath in the future, right? And if she is not experiencing God’s wrath right now and is already saved, then her future is a continuation of her saved state. The difference is that she will get her rewards but is not now, nor ever will experience God’s wrath (if she was saved).
I think I also had a clip of John MacArthur on my DVD saying the same thing as his study Bible – that verse 15 cannot be Eve because it is future and Eve is dead. I don’t think he mentions a thing about having to do something because of “if”. It is only the future tense that he is concerned with. There is a lot that I don’t agree with John MacArthur on, but this is one thing that I do agree with him. The Bible doesn’t ever use future tense words about clearly dead people.
Womanblaming is when we blame someone because as a woman she is doing something that we disapprove of. When we foist the responsibilty for the heavy psychological pressures and relative lack of choice on women as if they had created the world they live in. We will all get frustrated sometimes, and be angry with women when we wish that we were not. But the golden rule should be if you wouldn’t judge a man that way, don’t condemn a woman either.
Cheryl,
There are some things you have said that I don’t understand and can’t work out why you have said them, but I think if I summarise what I can follow, then we both may be happy to leave this issue and press on with some more productive things.
My friend and I have never thought that anything can be added to our salvation after we die. Nothing we do after we die makes any difference to our eternal salvation. I am sorry if I haven’t expressed myself clearly enough on this.
Can I just ask something to double check that we really are basically in agreement.
If the apostle Paul were alive today, and he knew my grandmother before she died, do you believe he would be happy to say
“She ‘was saved’ when she believed the gospel, was justified, was forgiven for all her sins and became a child of God.
She ‘will be saved’ from God’s wrath in the future judgement and for the rest of eternity (not because of anything she has done to deserve it, before or after she died, but because of God’s mercy, forgiving her sins through the death of Christ).”
If you answer yes, we are in agreement.
If you answer yes, but…………. we are in agreement
If you answer no, I have misunderstood something.
The slight difference that would remain is that you might say to my friend that his point is irrelevant because v15b clearly proves that Eve can’t be in mind, and even John MacArthur agrees that it can’t refer to Eve.
I however replied to him, “I agree that the bible sometimes says that believers are not only saved now but “will be saved” in the future and for all eternity. But Paul can’t be saying that here in reference to Eve because of v15b.
Craig,
You asked:
I think he would be happy to say that she was saved and is safe in the arms of the Lord.
Neither Paul nor any of the apostles talked like this about the dead for it was the living who were concerned about making it through and being accepted by God. The Bible says that we were children of wrath but as saved people we have already been rescued from the wrath to come.
1 Thess 1:10 is “rescues” is present tense and this rescue will carry into the future so of the living we can say that we will be kept safe, but of the dead, they are already there. Although I can see the assurance that we who are alive will be saved from God’s wrath (just as we are saved now), since the dead are already with God in His presence, I have a difficult time seeing how one can talk about a future salvation for them.
I have just never seen this kind of talk about the dead since they are either lost or in the presence of God. Perhaps there is a Bible verse that would communicate a future salvation for the righteous dead that I have missed. If you know of anything like that I would be willing to look at it. Perhaps there is something in the Scripture that talks about future salvation for those who are in the realm of the dead. If I can see in the Scripture what you are trying to say, I can have another look at it. Otherwise I just say that the righteous dead are safe with God.
Craig,
I should have made it clear that I answered “no” on the last question. I don’t think Paul would have said the second statement as that kind of “future” for the dead is not stated that way. The future statements are always formed in the way of the living.
Does this help?
Sorry Craig,
I got caught up in the answer and forgot to read all the way through your comment.
You said:
I think that would be good enough and leave it at that. After all the end of verse 15 makes it so clear that even those who think that the dead can be spoken of as having a future salvation know that the future salvation cannot be conditional on either the dead or the living doing something.
I went through a lot of John MacArthur material when I was writing the script for my DVDs and I do not remember him ever speaking about 1 Timothy 2:15b in giving his reason for why it could not be Eve. He always stopped with the future tense and left it at that. I just think that the conditional phrase adds weight to the future tense.
The issue about Eve is that she is never directly said to be saved. Abraham is said to be saved and so is David but not Eve directly. So the future tense would be questionable since she is not listed in the “hall of faith” per se. We are never told what happened to her or if she remained in faith so why would we think that Paul would speculate about her assured salvation?
Let me begin by saying that I am in full agreement with the core essentials of the Christian faith, eg., the summary of faith embodied in the Nicene Creed. What I cannot agree with however, is trying to make an airtight-lock-stock-and-barrel belief system out of the personal letters of the apostle Paul. Inspiration is one thing, and so long as it touches the work that Jesus did for all humankind with an offer for literal eternal life for all who’ll believe and be transformed, I’m onboard. The rest? I’ll take it with so many grains of salt.
Greg,
I agree that what may appear to some as a solitary unique doctrine that appears in a personal letter of Paul’s and never repeated again anywhere is not something that people should jump on to claim that it is a universal new law. After all how could one be a Berean this way? If Paul was teaching through a personal letter to Timothy a brand new doctrine (let’s say it is the new doctrine that all godly women are not allowed to teach correct biblical doctrine to men) then as a true Berean we need to ask where is the foundation for that doctrine in God’s first revelation (the OT)? Let’s pull out the OT just like the Bereans did and search the scriptures to see if it is so and gladly accept what is confirmed in the Scriptures. I am so glad that God was willing to repeat and repeat and repeat so that we can know for sure what is sin and what is not. The sin of women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men? It isn’t found in the OT, isn’t repeated by any apostle and is a interpretation of one passage of scripture that is bound to human tradition but never confirmed as God’s law. I believe it is time to challenge a tradition that binds God’s female “sons” and makes it difficult for them to carry on with the will of God without opposition. The world will oppose us but our brothers in Christ should not.
Cheryl,
First, i am not here to continue in a long discussion. I would just like to offer a few comments for your readers and for you.
1. You break the rules of hermeneutics. Your whole interpretation is based on a ‘hypothetical’ false teacher that as yet, we have no evidence for. There is no ‘external’ evidence to support your case, so your exegesis needs to be taken with caution as any solely ‘internal’ exegesis does. This hermeneutical approach is not a good one as i’m sure you are aware. It’s basically a ‘guess’ on the grammar with no coroborating evidence, let’s at least be honest about that.
2. Why is the woman not already saved, when it appears she already has faith. We know this because the ‘if’ clause states according to YLT ‘remains in faith.’ You would assume to remain in faith, one would already have faith and to have faith is to be saved!
3. Why do ‘they’ need to remain in faith ect, for ‘she’ to be saved? Is this hypothetical husband contributing to his wife’s salvation. Is her salvation conditional on his remaining in faith aswell. This is what your exegesis misses and which leads to a drastically contradictory personal salvation that the Bible portrays. You attempt to solve this tension saying that we need others to direct our teaching ect, but this is not what the verse saids. It saids, ‘if they remain in faith’.
4. If this text is dealing with a specific woman and her husband you should at least be consistent with your grammatical approach and say that ‘love’, ‘sanctification’ and ‘sobriety’ are all required elements for this ‘they’ to be ‘saved’, since these are all part of the ‘conditional’ clause.
As you clearly state, this is a difficult verse to understand, however i don’t think your exegesis adequately solves the issue. There are just as many holes and problems with your exegesis as there is with any other.
Thanks for your time.
Cheerio
Hey Mark, I am delighted that you are still reading here on my blog. And I am very glad that you found some time to try to point out any weaknesses that you think might be in my argument. It gives me a wonderful opportunity to show that there are no weaknesses at all and for that I am very grateful for your challenge. I do hope that you keep reading and will respond once in a while. Maybe you can even catch us up on your family and your new baby.
1. You said that my interpretation is based on a ‘hypothetical’ false teacher. Actually it seems to me that it is you who break the rules of hermeneutics not me. Paul didn’t say that Timothy was to stop the false teachers from teaching AND women who are teaching the truth to men. Since the stopping of true teaching is not in the passage and is not in the Bible as a whole, it would break the rules of hermeneutics to create a special class of people who are not permitted to teach the truth of the gospel to another special class of people. I am just following the proper hermeneutic to show that only error is silenced and not truth. The burden is on you to show a pattern in the Scriptures where truth is silenced depending on a person’s social standing, their nationality, or their gender. The only other option we have is that she was silenced just the same as all the other false teachers. I submit that your ‘hypothetical’ true teacher(s) who are being silenced from the truth of God’s word is impossible.
What is truly amazing is that you could even say something like this. You are round about admitting that I have “internal” evidence yet the what I also have is both internal and external consistency of God’s word which does not silence true witnesses of God who are teaching truth. You have neither internal nor external evidence which should be evident to all.
This reminds me of the first time that I was asked a teach a class of second year Bible students. Their professor brought me in to teach and I started with asking them a basic question about the gospel and not a single one of those young men who were on their way to becoming pastors could answer me. It is also discouraging to think that many of these places of higher learning are turning out pastors who actually think that a good approach is to accept a view that has no evidence at all within the text or external to the text and yet call this “good hermeneutics”.
It is not a guess at all on the grammar. Grammar has rules and there is no need for guessing. We can see what applies to Eve and what doesn’t by the precise grammar that Paul used.
2. You asked:
The answer is deception. Just like Eve was deceived into moving away from the truth about God, so the false teachers strayed from love from a pure heart, a good conscience and from sincere faith according to 1 Timothy 1:5, 6.
First of all there is no question on his salvation, just hers. “She” will be saved…if…. Secondly the false teachers all come from within the church. There is no problem in saying to one who has left the boat, “if you remain in the boat you won’t drown”. It isn’t limited to those still in the boat (the man) but to the one who has strayed from the boat. It is perfectly logical to say this to one who has left the boat and the grammar fits perfectly.
Mark, I will continue to answers your points in the next comment.
continuing with Mark’s questions:
3. You asked:
I answered this one already but I am happy to repeat. Those who have been deceived and who are caught in the lie need help in getting out of aberrant doctrine. Those who have been deceived do not often get out on their own. They need at least one person to help them unravel the deception.
He is to bring the truth to her and help her learn from those gifted in teaching God’s Word. He contributes in helping her to be back on track after her deception caused her to “stray” from the truth.
If he follows the lie, it will be very unlikely that she will have any motivation to work at unlearning the false doctrine and learning the truth.
Not so. The issue is deception and how to get out of that snare of the devil. If you had a ministry to the cults as I have, you would be aware of how important it is to one who is trapped in a cult to get them to think outside the box. The cult mentality that is based on a lie is a difficult mindset to break. And a person rarely leaves on their own.
It is no different in saying to one who is in the water, that if they remain in the boat they will not drown. The fact is that there were a number of people in Ephesus who had strayed from the faith (1 Tim. 1:6) and who were unaware that what they were teaching was not true knowledge but was ignorance (1 Tim. 1:7). The solution is education in the truth and Timothy was to help so that God could show mercy to those who were sinning in ignorance and unbelief just as Paul himself had sinned but found mercy from God (1 Tim. 1:13)
to be continued…
4. Lastly, Mark you asked:
The conditional clause is set up only for her salvation. The Scripture doesn’t say “they will be saved…if…” I believe that Paul said what he meant and meant what he said. It was only her salvation that was in question.
Thanks for your questions and your challenges! It is always a pleasure to be able to show that the interpretation that I hold to is consistent with each of the inspired words, the inspired grammar and the inspired context.
A challenge back to you….where does God have any rules or any law that would forbid godly teachers from teaching the truth of His word? Please back up your very unconventional hermeneutic from the Scriptures.
Mark, re: #30
Your point about internal and external evidence concerning Paul’s Timothy letters is well taken, and if you’ll permit me, I’ll expand it.
Cheryl has demonstrated admirably that there is no compelling internal (Scripture) evidence that bans Godly women from teaching the Bible to men, because the apparent prohibition is repeated nowhere else in Scripture. Some will contend of course that there needn’t be any repetition because Paul has revealed a God-breathed prohibition and that’s that.
The problem with this view is that it makes Paul a new Moses, his letters a new Levitical code, and that Jesus’ death on the cross was not enough to satisfy a tyrant’s bloodthirst. In addition, it forces an interpretation of the Genesis account which is both unweildy and not at all in line with God’s character as revealed in the rest of Scripture. Kind of like trying to get the tail to wag the doggie rather than the other way ’round.
Cheryl,
Family is great, baby is healthy happy and very smily now which is nice.
NIce try skirting around her abnormal hermeutical approach, but for anyone versed in biblical exegesis and hermeneutics would realise that such an interpretation needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
The basic issue is this as i see it. Your presupposition is that this text is addressed to a specific false female teacher and presumably her husband. Yet, there is no internal biblical evidence to support the ‘theory’ that such a false teacher existed. Paul is not in the habit of keeping these decievers ‘anonymous’ and the only false teachers mentioned are men.
Second, there is no external extra biblical evidence to support your exegesis, for example other early documents ect.
So the only think your exegesis is based on, is Cheryl Schatz’s interpretation of the grammar. This is a hermeneutical approach which is not popular.
Now the weight of evidence against your interpretation is the writings of church leaders, exegetes theologians throughout the history of Christianity. Now of course this is not infallible, but when one weighs up the evidence, the proper hermeneutic should always lean on the latter.
Also you in no way answered my critiques of your exegesis. For example i said,
“If this text is dealing with a specific woman and her husband you should at least be consistent with your grammatical approach and say that ‘love’, ’sanctification’ and ’sobriety’ are all required elements for this ‘they’ to be ’saved’, since these are all part of the ‘conditional’ clause.”
And you answered,
“The conditional clause is set up only for her salvation. The Scripture doesn’t say “they will be saved…if…” I believe that Paul said what he meant and meant what he said. It was only her salvation that was in question.”
Please answer the critique. Let me modify the question just so you know what i am asking.
The conditional clause saids that ‘they’ (husband and wife according to you) must “remain in faith’ aswell as ‘love, sanctification and sobriety’. Now since this is a conditional clause it would appear that if the husband did not remain in faith, the ‘she’ forfeits her future salvation. That is her or ‘she’ salvation is conditional not only on her faith. love ect, but on their/they faith, love ect. How do you reconcile this?
Final example to show you not adequately answering the questions..
“Is her salvation conditional on his remaining in faith aswell.”
You responded…
“If he follows the lie, it will be very unlikely that she will have any motivation to work at unlearning the false doctrine and learning the truth. ”
You switched the conditional clause to a ‘very unlikely’ scenario, which of course squashes the force of the conditonal clause. PLease answer the challanges.
By the way. i don’t have an answer to this text and i openly admit that. It is a difficult verse, but as i stated before, your interpretation is no clearer or better than the traditonal one. Thus i will continue to lean on the traditional view since it actually has evidence to support it.
Thanks
Greg,
I have to respectfully disagree because i believe that Paul’s writings are authoratative, part of the canon and therefore God inspired.
Take one example if you will.
The great reformed doctrine of justification by faith? Did this come from the lips of Christ or the apostle Paul?
I don’t think it is fair to pick and choose whic h parts of the New Testament we allow to be authoratative.
If i have misunderstood you, let me know.
Thanks
Mark,
Glad to hear that the baby is fine. When the smiles come babies are irresistible. It makes cleaning up after the diapers and drooling really worth it.
Now about your disagreements, you said:
I don’t know what you mean by “her” abnormal hermeutical approach. Who is the “her” you are talking about? And you as far as making sweeping statements without actually giving evidence of your position, well, all I can say is that it is a sign of weakness. I am the one with proof from the text. You give generalities about a “grain of salt” that has no substance at all and no verse or grammar to point to and you even have to admit defeat on the verse. Pity. 😉
Since none of the deceived are named and no gender is attributed to the unnamed people who are deceived, then there must be no internal evidence that a deceived male teacher was in Ephesus either. Do you believe that?
In verse 12 the teaching that is stopped is either true teaching or false teaching. I asked you to prove that God ever stopped any godly person from teaching the truth. You gave no such verse to support the stopping of the teaching of truth. What we have left then is the stopping of the teaching of error. Can we prove that God wants false teaching to be stopped. I think you are in a good position to affirm this.
You switched here. I have been talking not about deliberate deceivers but about the deceived. The book of Revelation talks about a deceiver who was a woman and she was named. None of the ones who are ignorantly deceived are named. If you disagree, name one who is deceived but who is not a lying deceiver. The ones who were like Paul who were really believing the lie were never named.
We have been around this bush quite a few times and you have never yet been able to name one of the ignorant deceived. Why is that? Is it because you realize that there is a difference between the deceived and those who are deceivers and liars?
Since Paul didn’t announce their names, why would we find those names in other documents? What are the names of the deceived men found in documents outside the Bible? The fact is that the Bible is enough for doctrine for reproof and for correction. Do you need more than that?
Grammar has rules and the rules of grammar support my interpretation. Unfortunately you don’t have an interpretation by your own admission, so we can’t test your interpretation by the grammar rules.
Oh really? And since the writings of the early church leaders have pretty much been in unison that they aren’t sure what Paul meant by this entire hard passage, how do you measure the “we are not sure” by my view which fits with the grammar? I am amazed at the claims you make that have no substance at all. Why do you do that?
What “evidence”? What “latter”? What particular claims are you exactly making for the church fathers that you don’t even agree with yourself?
More in a bit.
The internet is poor again this evening so I may not be able to get through too much. I will try to keep each comment shorter so that I can get through Mark’s comments.
It says nothing about “forfeiting” salvation. Paul says “she will be saved…if…” That is an assurance only under certain conditions. Paul cannot say that a person will never be saved, but he can give conditions on what will result in her salvation. He surely knew more about the situation than you or I do. He was the one giving the assurance and I believe him. Since you have no idea what these verses mean, you don’t seem to be so sure about Paul as I am.
I already told you. She is fully deceived. She is not coming out of her deception without help. Do you need more help to understand this?
Mark,
You said:
It is my belief from other examples that the deceived are unlikely to come out without help. As far as Paul’s assurance about the woman’s situation, well, I accept his word that she will be saved if she has help to go with her. That is the truth because it is in God’s word. What would be your reason for not believing it?
While we can assume things about the negative, Paul only speaks about the positive so that is where we can be sure of what will happen. She “will be” saved…if….
My view doesn’t have any holes and, my friend, you haven’t found any holes either. Paul had an assurance that I believe was the truth.
The traditional view says that this passage is not completely understood. The traditional view says that Paul is stopping true teaching while the Scripture never supports this. I would rather stick with Scripture any day rather than be stuck with the contradictions of the “traditional view”.
Thanks again for stopping by. It is just too bad that you aren’t one to answer questions. Challenges are always good if one is sincerely looking to know and understand the truth.
By the way, Mark, I am still waiting for you to email me about the answers I sent you on our John 6 discussion. If your email won’t let mine through, then all you need to do is provide me with another address.
Cheryl,
What do you understand as a conditional clause?
I’m trying to follow your exegesis here and see where it leads logically.
The way i read you, her future salvation is conditional on several things (faith, love etc) which is fine and i think biblically since elsewhere salvation is portrayed as futuristic like this aswell, e.g those who persevere will be saved.
Where your exegesis becomes troublesome is when you appeal that the ‘they’ is husband and wife, since then it inevitably means that the future salvation of the wife is not only dependant on certain things but also on several people. Her salvation is conditional on not only her, but also on him remaining in faith etc.
I do not think your statement “I already told you. She is fully deceived. She is not coming out of her deception without help. Do you need more help to understand this?” solves the problem of your exegesis. This is becasue we are not just talking about ‘coming out of her deception’, we are talking about her eternal salvation which is what you take sozo to mean. I’ve asked this a few times now. If you can’t answer, that is fine, just admit that this is a exegetical hole in your argument.
Finally, i stated from the beginning that i’m not here to engage in more battles over and over. I simply wanted to comment on your exegesis, that’s all. You often ask for people to critique it so this is what i offer. I’m not going to engage in an exegetical argument back and forth between your view and mine- we have been there unsuccessfully.
I do admit that this verse is hard. But so does everybody else. It is not a weakness to admit that you don’t understand a certain verse. Since this is the case, we ought to be very cautious of people who think they have a flawless exegesis of this passage. History should tell us otherwise.
If you do not wish to answer any further on my comments that is fine, but please stop asking me to show you my proof or my exegesis etc-i’m not here for that. And frankly to try and throw it back onto me doesn’t help your cause in defending your case, it makes it look as if you would just rather attack the opposition than defend the fort.
I hope you are willing to answer why and how the woman’s salvation can be conditional on her husband’s faith, love, sobriety and sanctification. I hope you can offer a stronger case for your position.
God bless.
P.S i would think that Paul is a good example of a decieved false teacher being named? Isn’t this obvious considering your exegesis relies heavily on Paul’s personal refelction in chapter 1. But of course that is based on the assumption that this passage IS dealing with false teaching, which is truly an assumption with no other evidence to support it.
By the way i never recieved that email, and i’m not going to go open a new account elsewhere. Thanks anyway for the discussions on John 6, they were helpful.
Final thought,
I would have thought that an exegesis based on one’s own un supported grammtical interpretation would be a hole to begin with…a major hole.
However, in the future we may uncover new documents which show a decieved false teacher existed in Ephesus which would the help validate your interpretation.
But as for now in 2010, i’m very hesitant to accept this interpretation which is based solely on your own assumptions and greek interpretation. Can i ask if any other scholars have recognised your interpretation as possible, either egalitarian or comp. Only if you feel comfortable sharing.
Thanks
Hi Mark, good to see you visiting here.
Why is it a problem for you that this woman’s salvation is conditional on one person (her husband – rather than several people) and his remaining in faith etc? You don’t think that either a husband or a wife can have any serious effect on the salvation of their partner? I don’t understand why you have a problem with her husband having to remain in faith etc for her salvation since she is deceived. What does what he has to do in order for her to be saved mean to you? The woman’s husband has to do a, b and c, so what does that mean to you, what is the problem? Why is it a problem for you that her husband has a part in her “future salvation”? Can a wife or husband have a part in their spouses “future salvation”? I hope you are able to find time to answer my questions so that I can understand where you are coming from.
From the text, can you tell us why and how the woman’s salvation cannot possibly be conditional on her and also her husband’s faith etc? What is wrong with the condition being in the text? Should it not be there for some reason that you can tell me? It just doesn’t seem right that it is there in the text in your opinion? It is not right that the woman’s salvation is dependent on her husband remaining in the faith because? What? People don’t have any affect at all on other’s salvation?
TL,
I am glad you see what i have asked, much appreciated.
There is a massive theological problem with what you are proposing. If we take sozo to mean salvation in the normal Pauline sense we are dealing with eternal personal salvation. Salvation from sin and the consequence of punishment and eternal hell.
Now if the woman’s salvation (her personal salvation from her own sin and restoration into a right relationship with God) is dependent upon what her husband does, how can we possibly reconcile that with the rest of the New Testament. What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?
Take your own life for example and i will assume your married. Do you believe that your salvation from sin and hell is conditional upon what your husband/wife (i don’t know what sex you are sorry) does/believes, or is your salvation dependent upon your own faith and trust in the atoneing work of Christ?
There is a difference between saying a spouse can influence your life/decisions etc and saying that their faith, love, sanctification and sobriety are all required for you to be saved. Can you see the difference?
If this hypothetical wife cannot be assured of her salvation unless her husband remains in faith etc, what does that say for us? How can we know we will ever be saved if it is conditional on our spouse?
This theological position, if we are understanding each other correctly is radically unbiblical and completely undermines personal reconciliation with the Father.
I’d love to here your response to see if we understand each other. Are you actually proposing that this woman in Ephesus who is false teaching ( in ignorance) will only be saved if both her and her husband remain in faith, love etc… is one person’s salvation really dependent upon someone else’s actions that you have no control over?
If this is what you believe…well let’s cross that bridge if we get to it! Hopefully not. I do not think 1 Tim 2:15 is proposing this, it is a contradiction with the rest of the NT.
Sorry pinklight, that was addressed to you, not TL.
Good question Mark. Context and culture I think will help. First, in that era a wife and the rest of the household was expected to follow the beliefs of the husband/father. This is why a married woman living with an unbeliever (1 Peter 3) was advised to witness by her behavior and not by her words. Secondly, it is possible that the husband contributed somehow to the wife’s behavior, perhaps by simply doing nothing, just like Adam with Eve. Then it would be proper for Paul to say “if they both continue in faith”.
“He is thinking of christians who have died. He is an evangelical, bible believing christian. He would argue that the bible uses the term salvation sometimes in an eschatalogical sense (I think that is the correct expression), looking toward the final judgement.”
Craig, I would be interested in hearing what you think happens to unbelievers when they die?
“There is a massive theological problem with what you are proposing. If we take sozo to mean salvation in the normal Pauline sense we are dealing with eternal personal salvation. Salvation from sin and the consequence of punishment and eternal hell.”
This is the typical CBMW view that sozo in this passage does not mean salvation. And he ignores Childbearing as a noun.
But Mark is ignoring what Paul wrote in Chapter 1 which helps us understand what Timothy would clearly understand about those who are deceived vs those who willfully deceive others on purpose like Hy and Al.
It really helps to get rid of chapter breaks and verse numbers and read these as they were meant to be read: As letters.
Mark, Do you really think my Savior requires me to have children to be saved? A works salvation for women only?
Re: Mark #36 ,
With all due respect on this end too, I do not subscribe to reformed theology, nor do I believe in TULIP doctrine. But I’m sure that we could arrive at a sort of civil dialogue based on the non-negotiable articles of faith as delineated in the Nicene Creed.
There is indeed misunderstanding about my previous comment (#34). I never suggested that Paul’s writings are not authoritative. But rather, how much weight must they have when they do not directly affirm the non-negotiables of the faith? Or when they are at odds with the remaining witness of Scripture?
We are the products of Greek Hellenism here in the West. We cannot help but to want to harmonize every last alpha, beta, delta, and phi of Paul’s writings into a religious system that gives us meaning. The inherent danger of this approach if not checked with reason and common sense, is that it shackles the believer into a new Levitical code with no latitude of conscience.
“But rather, how much weight must they have when they do not directly affirm the non-negotiables of the faith? Or when they are at odds with the remaining witness of Scripture”
Such as women could prophesy at Pentecost but not for the rest of the church age. Of course, now we must listen to endless parsing of what prophesying means. And then we must point them to the Patriarchal Puritains who said it meant preaching. Of course the Puritans did not have to worry about women preachers since their women had no civil standing and were the property of their husbands.
If we take their interpretations on the subject of women there are tons of contradictions in the Word. And a new, more legalistic ‘law’ for women in the NC AFTER the Cross! After all, there was no prohibition to women leading or teaching men in the Old Covenant. But then they try to convince us that pastors today are really Levite Priests in the NC. And around we go.
Mark @ 46 said, “There is a difference between saying a spouse can influence your life/decisions etc and saying that their faith, love, sanctification and sobriety are all required for you to be saved. Can you see the difference?”
I can see the difference, but Paul has said that if both husband and wife continue…she will be saved. So what is the issue? He has NOT said, if only he continues…she will be saved, or she will only be saved if they both ocntinue. Why make Paul say more than he is saying? He is NOT suggesting (and has not said) that what the “he” does will determine “her” salvation but rather the simple truth that if they both continue SHE will be saved (as indeed BOTH of them will be). In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.
(I have of course assumed the “they” is a “he” and a “she” for the purpose of making a logical point!).
Mark, I feel the need to point out some observations. I am happy to be corrected on any or all of them if I have misunderstood you.
*You have come here not to discuss or answer our questions, but to try and show holes in Cheryl’s exegesis.
*You will not offer your own interpretation.
*You take exception to Greg’s comments about the importance of Pauline writings, and yet you ask Cheryl to back up her exegesis from external documents, without which you willl not accept her interpretation.
*You place greater weight on historical church writings than interpreting the grammar that is there in Scripture.
*You develop arguments that rely on suggesting Paul is saying something that he clearly has not said, for example, that the womans salvation is dependant on the other person/s involved in verse 15.
Once again, I am a simple man and if I have misunderstood I am sorry, but is this where you are coming from? I am not trying to be confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, but rather so that we might all know where we stand.
Dave
Mark,
Yes, it is dependent upon what she and her husband continue to do, but I don’t see the contradiction. Where’s the rub? “What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?” I can only guess. Since Paul said that she will be saved “if they” remain in faith etc, I think that if her husband did not remain in faith then she might have not been saved because Paul said she would be saved “if they”…
I’m female, Mark.
My situation actualy has been similar to the one in the passage but I won’t go into the details.
Do I believe that some may need another to come out of their sin? Absolutely. Can the help affect the salvation of the one who was in sin? Absolutely.
What’s the difference? Are you saying that what the man had to do in order to help the woman come out of her deception and be saved was not a matter of influence? If what he was to do which was remain in faith etc wasn’t a matter of influence and the like then what was it?
We cannot say that everyone’s situation will be the same as the one Paul was addressing. We cannot say that everyone’s salvation will be conditional upon their spouse.
How so? Are you sure?
I think I am understanding you. Yes, the woman will be saved “if they” continue in faith etc. Yes, a person’s salvation can be dependent upon someone else’s actions. But what are you getting at or asking in the last part of your question which is “that you have no control over”?
lol Let’s cross the bridge, Mark! And can you explain the contradiction. I don’t see it.
#54 & 55
Good points, Dave! I agree with them all.
I think it is very important what Paul did not say. Thumbs up!
Lydia @ 49,
You asked,
“Craig, I would be interested in hearing what you think happens to unbelievers when they die?”
I believe that the final Judgment Day has not happened yet. It is still in the future.
Unbelievers who have died (and those who are still alive at the time of Christ’s return) will be eternally condemned. There will be suffering and exclusion from God’s presence forever.
Believers who have died (and those who are still alive at the time of Christ’s return) will not be condemned. They will be delivered or “saved” from this future Day of God’s wrath and judgment, and live in eternal joy in God’s presence.
What is happening NOW with those who have died is more tricky, but I believe that unbelievers are conscious, in torment awaiting their final condemnation on Judgment Day.
Believers are in God’s presence with joy, awaiting with assurance that they will not be condemned on that Day, but be rewarded for their faithfulness in christian living and continue to live eternally in God’s presence.
Does that answer your question? I certainly do not claim any expertise in these doctrines but that is what makes sense to me from the scriptures at this stage.
TL,
Thanks for your thoughts. However i am seeing a common thread with most of these comments which is associated with the conditional clause. You said
“Secondly, it is possible that the husband contributed somehow to the wife’s behaviour”
I agree that we influence others with our behaviour, but according to Cheryl’s interpretation we are not dealing with behaviour- we are dealing with eternal salvation (sozo). Now if the conditional clause is going to carry the weight that it should, i cannot see how one can divert that Cheryl’s interpretation inevitably leads to the wife’s salvation being (conditional) on the faith and actions of not only her but also her husband. This is a conditional clause remember! If the condition is not met, salvation is gone. See Cheryl’s own definition of a conditional clause in the main post.
Lydia,
I’m not sure where your going since i haven’t offered my own interpretation nor am i aware of what CBMW say on this. My assumption would be that there are numerous interpretations on what this verse means.
Greg,
Thanks for clearing that up, but i’m still not sure what you are then trying to say. I agree that there are essentials, one of which is justification by faith on a personal level, that is why the conditional clause in this particular interpretation is troublesome.
Dave,
I agree with this
“In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.”
But what i think you are watering down is the conditional clause. If the above statement is true then how do you reconcile the conditional clause? How can the wife’s salvation (sozo) be conditional on her husband’s faith and works? I think it is actually you who is making Paul say more than he is by inserting “only’ into the mix. You are assuming that Paul is saying both will be saved if both do x, y, z and not “only” the wife. The problem is in this interpretation the wife’s salvation is conditional on something, and according to you all, it is conditional on both her and her husband. This is the reality of a conditional clause.
Now to answer your questions
*You have come here not to discuss or answer our questions, but to try and show holes in Cheryl’s exegesis. Yes. I don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is as flawless as portayed. So i am offering my opinions on her exegesis not pushing for acceptance of mine.
*You will not offer your own interpretation. Yes, been through all this before
*You take exception to Greg’s comments about the importance of Pauline writings, and yet you ask Cheryl to back up her exegesis from external documents, without which you willl not accept her interpretation. Not sure i understand the reference to Greg. Regarding external evidence i have discussed that. Any purely internal hermeneutic should be taken cautiously since the only thing it relies on, is one person’s interpretation of grammar. Why is it that the early greek speaking Church never understood Paul’s grammar the way proposed here? This should at least keep us discerning. That’s all!
*You place greater weight on historical church writings than interpreting the grammar that is there in Scripture. No, but historical evidence at least helps us understand how the natural speakers of this language understood the grammar. In terms of interpreting the grammar, who saids Cheryl is the only one who knows how to do it? IF it was that simple, then this verse would not cause the discussion it does. The reality is, the grammar is complex and thus anyone who saids that they have it nailed is either overly confident or ignorant of the difficulties of this verse. After all, i could argue that it was her brother not her husband…who knows? That is the problem with this approach
…it’s purely a guess on grammar.
*You develop arguments that rely on suggesting Paul is saying something that he clearly has not said, for example, that the womans salvation is dependant on the other person/s involved in verse 15. I am trying to take Cheryl’s exegesis and see where it leads so as to see if it actually stands up. I have not suggested anything contrary to the grammar and Cheryl’s own agreement that this is a conditional clause. Therefore we must take it as a conditional clause which is making the salvation (sozo) conditional on what is said in the sub clause. It is not good enough just to say (he) is helping her come out of deception because this is not what the verse saids, nor does it actually do justice to the conditional clause. This is basic grammatical rules. A conditional clause is a conditional clause. A is conditional on B in this case both the woman’s and the husbands faith and works (if we accept this to be husband and wife). So no i am not saying something wrong. I am taking the conditonal clause to be a conditional clause and applying that to Cheryls exegesis which she has not done.
Thanks
Pinklight,
“Yes, it is dependent upon what she and her husband continue to do, but I don’t see the contradiction. Where’s the rub? “What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?” I can only guess.”
The rub is clear, no longer is salvation by grace through faith, but by grace through faith (plus) the husbands faith and works…big contradiction. As to your guess, again the same issue applies- this is a conditional clause, meaning that if the condition is not met, salvation falls. This is the reality of a conditional clause.
What you are actually proposing is that this woman’s salvation is conditional on what both her and her husband believe and do. This is not inline with other clear biblical teaching and therefore must be rejected. It undermines the gospel and salvation and the promise of nothing separating us from God. It undermines the very heart of the gospel.
Many of your comments pinklight follow in line with Cheryl’s claim that the husband was to help bring the woman out of deception. But this is not in the text, dismisses what sozo means, and undermines the conditional clause. We are talking about eternal salvation (accepting Cheryls definition for this) in the context of a conditional clause. You cannot just substitute that for coming out of deception with a little help from hubby. It actually ignores the grammar which this interpretation claims as so strong in it’s favour.
You said, “Yes, a person’s salvation can be dependent upon someone else’s actions.” How so and what biblical proof do you have for this? The way the protestant reformers saw salvation was by their OWN personal faith and trust in Jesus. This is the biblically accepeted position of evangelicals.
Let me just put one of your comments up alongside Dave’s and see if you do actually agree
Pinklight- “Yes, a person’s salvation can be dependent upon someone else’s actions”
Dave- ““In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.”
I can’t see how you are actually agreeing, and also remember pinklight that the husband remaining in faith is also conditional not just his actions. You say salvation can be dependent on another person’s actions. Dave saids it rests on HER faith in Christ. Maybe you can reconcile the apparent difference, but as i see it, you are all saying different things and no one is actually dealing with the condtional cause and thus the condition that must be met for this woman to be saved in the future.
I’m jumping in here without having read the rest of what you’ve said and your comments…Mark, have you read Dave’s posts?
It appears then that you are misunderstanding us, Mark.
Mark,
Thanks for your good question.
I was just wondering if God had said to Peter
“The Gentile Cornelius will be saved, if you obey me and go and tell him the gospel.”
Could God have truthfully said this?
Would this deny the doctrine of justification by faith?
Would this mean that salvation was not by his “OWN personal faith and trust in Jesus”?
I may be wrong, but this could possibly be a bit similar to the 1 Tim 2:15 situation.
Craig,
Good question, but it’s a hypothetical one so hardly relevant for the discussion i would have thought.
Now don’t here me wrong, i have stated and agreed that what we do, does and will effect people and potentially there decision to accept Christ- this is a common Christian understanding for God working in and through us. It is a common acknowledgement that we must obey God’s commands to take the gospel to all nations.
But is that the same as what appears in 1 Tim 2:15?
I might just wait to see what Cheryl saids since it is her exegesis we are dealing with. I’m hoping she can engage better with what i have raised and help me to understand more how she understands this verse.
I truly do not think it is enough though, just to say this (husband) is needed to bring the woman out of deception. It seems very forced into the verse (because we have faith, sanctification, love and self control as the conditions) and in my opinion weakens the conditional clause.
Final point Craig also, consider that the conditional clause in verse 15 saids “if they remain in faith”, so we are dealing here with more than ‘works’ or ‘influence’ or ‘obedience’. We are dealing with the ‘they’ (whoever that is) faith also. This throws a spanner into the works, and intensifies the conditional clause since it is about more that the (husband) obeying or doing something to help his wife- it is also about his faith (pistis). It is not uncommon for Paul to link ‘faith’ and salvation’ as i’m sure your aware.
Now since Cheryl is arguing for an ‘eternal salvation’ meaning for ‘sozo’ you would have to assume that the ‘faith’ is that which enables one to be saved, rather than a translation of ‘faithfulness’ or the like which some might argue for.
Anyway, i’ll let Cheryl respond when she has time. Hopefully she is considering my critiques and can offer an acceptable answer.
Let me ask you Craig, are you comfortable with the hermeneutical approach taken with this exegesis?
Mark, thanks for being honest about why you are here.
I do not think I am weakening the conditional clause. The conditional clause is that she will be saved if they continue in faith etc. The conditional clause is not that she will only be saved if they both continue in faith (is does not say this…but you are insisting that it does). You are trying to get the conditional clause to say more than it is. You are placing restrictions above and beyond what Paul does. I am not taking anything away from the conditional clause, nor am I adding to it.
Now, in light of the fact that you are not here to shed any light on what Paul does mean here, and that you admit you do not know what Paul is saying, and in light of the fact that you cannot find any holes in Cheryl’s exegesis, perhaps you would like to accept her interpretation? 🙂
Mark,
You asked,
“Let me ask you Craig, are you comfortable with the hermeneutical approach taken with this exegesis?”
Yes. At this stage, after reading all of your recent comments I think there are adequate answers to your questions and feel comfortable with Cheryl’s view of this passage. Over recent months I have had many questions myself and the people here on this blog have been very patient and helpful as I have been rethinking this passage and many others.
Folks,
I will be offline for awhile. We have been on a ministry trip shopping for renovation material for our new office and studio and our truck was broken into and we lost a ministry computer and a lot of financial information including gifts to our ministry that were taken that had not yet been deposited. We really need your prayers right now as this has been devastating especially to my husband.
Oh my dear friend Cheryl, I’m shocked as well. How awful. I pray that somehow this is equalized out into something better.
Craig,
Just thinking again about your hypothetical.
Cornelius’ salvation is conditional on Peter’s obedience.
Wife’s salvation is conditional on her faith and actions plus her husband’s faith and actions.
So the parellel would not be the same unless cornelius was also having to do the same as Peter…see what i mean?
So sorry to hear that Cheryl. Our prayers are with you.
Cheryl,
Sorry to hear what happened with the truck and all. Bad things happen to good and bad people alike, and in many cases there is no distinguishing between good and bad folks whatsoever (Book of Ecclesiastes). There are some who will try and use this as a big AHA! I told you so!, in order to try and kick dirt onto your ministry. Don’t let them dear sister. God DOES NOT deal out bad things to those he loves no matter how many proof texts some will come up with to try and justify a warped sense of sovereign power.
“Cornelius’ salvation is conditional on Peter’s obedience.”
Mark, How can you be reformed and believe this? Do you think there was no one else God would use if Peter was not obedient? Cornelius was earnestly seeking God and we know what that means.
“Wife’s salvation is conditional on her faith and actions plus her husband’s faith and actions.”
How is a wife’s salvation conditional on her husband’s faith and actions? This view makes a mockery of the Cross.
Dave,
“The conditional clause is not that she will only be saved if they both continue in faith (is does not say this…but you are insisting that it does).”
Please define a conditional clause Dave and see if you are correct. Here is Cheryl’s own definition
“Next Paul says that “she will be saved…if” The “if” is an adverbial conditional conjunction which introduces a condition that must occur before another action or event can occur.”
So the condition must occur (BOTH remain in faith, love, sanctification, self control) before the action or event can occur (salvation).
So actually i am not insisting anything beyond what the conditional clause is, nor beyond Cheryl’s own definition. If the condition is not met, the action or event cannot occur.
Sorry, Dave but your ignoring the force of the clause.
So no, i don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is flawless. Perhaps if we ever find some evidence to support the exegesis i would then consider it. But with what we have so far, there are better alternatives that correspond to the grammar, are supported by the early Church’s actions and teachings and are not based on guessing that such a person existed in the Ephesian Church when Timothy was leading. Plus we are only actually dealing with verse 15 here and not the other verses.
Have a look at what Kostenberger saids about this verse here…http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/roles_kostenberger.pdf
Once this is read, it is easy to see the complications with this verse which never appear to be discussed here. I continue to find it amazing that people on this blog are so confident on this interpretation.
Anyways, nice chatting. How is Ryde Pressie? Do you have much to do with Ryde Congregational?
Lydia,
See the comments above. THe Cornelius/Peter thing is a hypothetical that Craig was discussing.
I really like your last sentence and i completely agree, thus why Cheryl’s interpretation cannot be correct. This is where is inevitably leads…she will be saved (eternal salvation) if they remain in faith etc etc.
Yet, no one appears to be ready to realise this (except maybe pinklight if i understand her properly), since obviously it has theological implications.
But your right to ask, how can the woman’s salvation be conditonal on the husbands faith and actions? Obviously it can’t be!
But people will just continue to say that it only means ‘help bring out of deception which is actually denying the very thing they wish to claim- sticking to the grammar.
Thanks
Mark,
1. Couldn’t one also say that Cornelius’ salvation is conditional on his own faith and actions and on Peter’s faith and actions.
The wife’s salvation is conditional on her faith and actions and her husband’s faith and actions.
2. The main issue I think is whether one person’s salvation could be said to be conditional on another person. I think the “hypothetical” shows that one can use that language and not be unbiblical.
Mark,
I have given this discussion much thought and have come to the following conclusions. Perhaps you would like to comment on them.
*You claim to not have an interpretation of these verses, but rather problems with Cheryl’s understanding. But this is not true. You have provided an interpretation of the conditional clause which results in Paul saying that the woman’s salvation is dependant on the man. This is your interpretation of the grammar that is there. You seem to think that because you claim you are not providing an interpretation that you have nothing to answer yourself. But you have provided an interpretation. It is flawed. I am sure you agree – you have stated that this cannot be what Paul is saying.
*It is flawed because of how you are insisting a conditional clause operates. It does not operate the way you claim. Let me prove this to you with some first year Greek grammar! Satan said to Jesus (using a conditional clause), “If you are the Son of God turn these stones into bread.” Jesus did not turn the stones into bread, so does that mean he is not the Son of God? Your interpretation of the clause insists that the clause is ‘exclusive’, that the condition supplied is the ONLY way the outcome can occur. Jesus did not turn stones into bread, yet he is still the son of God.
We have another example from Matthew 9:21, “If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well”. Your interpretation insists (because it is ‘exclusive’) that the woman would ONLY be healed if she touches the garment. Of course she could have asked Jesus without touching him, and he could have healed her. She could have talked to a disciple who then told Jesus about her, and she could have been made well without Jesus even meeting her.
To further illustrate the flaw in your thinking if we look at the verse in question, you claim that because of the conditional clause her ONLY chance of salvation rests not only with her but also the other party. What you have failed to point out that your ‘exclusive’ use of conditional clauses also means that not only will she be saved through her actions and the actions of the other party but ALSO that he will not be saved. The conditional clause does not say he will be saved even if he does continue in faith, only that she will. This is simply following your logic of how a conditional clause works. It does not make sense! Pau l is not saying if he continues in faith he will not be saved, only she will be.
*Cheryl has suggested there is a relationship of influence that helps us understand how the conditional clause is being used. I agree. You do not. You do not give an argument other than to return to your flawed understanding of how a conditional clause works. But, if we look at the passage from verse 12 it would appear that it is all about influence, and about being deceived. Cheryl’s understanding of 15b does fit with the rest of the passage and makes logical sense of the conditional clause.
*I have to ask Mark, are you actually interested in the truth at this point. You do not seem at all concerned about your own lack of understanding of the passage. Your own interpretation of the conditional clause undermines scriptures teachings on salvation through our own faith. Because you do not offer an alternative, but instead a flawed interpretation which you yourself will not accept you begin to lose integrity in the discussion. You are not here to be helpful, but rathe unhelpful. Are you this strongly against women elders? Do you actually want the truth?
Mark, Ryde Pressie’s is going through a period of growth and change that has partially occured through my spending less time blogging! Thanks for asking. Although I drive past Ryde COngregational occasionally, I do not know anyone who goes there. I have never met the Pastor/Minister at any local minister type things, but perhaps they go to the ones I don’t!
Mark, I have not got the time at the moment to rest Kostenberger’s 30 pages, though I had a quick skim. Was there a specific point you were hoping to draw to our attention, or simply the complications in the verse?
Craig @ 78 – well put!
Mark,
“Conditional sentences are sentences which contain a subordinate clause which states a supposition and a principal clause which states the result of the fulfilment of this supposition. Example: If you do this you will beocme rich.” NT Greek, By Nunn
I think we would agree that Nunn is not suggesting there is only one way to become rich,.
I cannot comment on Cheryl’s definition, I do not know where it has come from and I do not even know where you are quoting Cheryl from or the context.
There are many types of conditional clauses. This would appear to be a future hypothetical example, and I believe it to be accurate to the truth. She will certainly be saved if they are both faithful. I am in no way lessening the strength of the clause.
“I really like your last sentence and i completely agree, thus why Cheryl’s interpretation cannot be correct. This is where is inevitably leads…she will be saved (eternal salvation) if they remain in faith etc etc.”
Mark, It is impossible for you to understand this passage because you do not recognize the real meaning of authenteo which explains everything. But since it has been translated as “authority over” it takes you down the wrong road. The road that takes many to works salvation as women need to bear children (or be in a role of mother) to be saved.
Cheryl@69,
I’m so sorry to hear this! May God strengthen you for these stressful times.
Dave@79,
Good stuff!! So, glad you have time to add info here again. I’m still in the processing of moving and etc…so have barely have time to keep up with reading the blog, much less comment.
I was wondering where you were Kay! Moving! Enough said!
Dave,
1. This is not my own interpretation. I have accepted Cheryl’s argument for the sake of clarification and am seeing where it leads. So the way I am discussing verse 15 is not my own personal interpretation, but where Cheryl’s leads if we accept that the ‘she’ is a deceived false teacher, and ‘they’ are her plus husband.
2. The two examples you provide of rebuttles are not actually appropriate for this discussion. In both instances the conditional clause preceeds the main clause. If it said, “you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread” we may be able to have a discussion. Your second example makes the same mistake. As you correctly state, there are many forms of conditional clauses, so perhaps you can find one that is helpful to our discussion, and then we can discuss it further. Also interesting to note Dave, that in your second example, Matt 9:21, ‘sozo’ is also used here, but how does it translate? Not eternal salvation but “I shall be cured/healed”. This ought to at least make us think that perhaps ‘sozo’ might not be best translated as ‘eternal salvation.’ Kostenberger makes this point also. “Sozo’ has quite broad usage.
3. The verse in discussion is vitally important since Cheryl is arguing that ‘sozo’ ought to be understood as eternal salvation. If this is true then the conditional clause should have a significant impact. As I see it, you nor her have offered an acceptable resolution to this interpretation. Perhaps you can offer your own if you like. It is no good appealing back to verse 12, 13 (because first of all you assume Cheryl’s interpretation there is correct) but it also in no way shape or form actually is supported by the grammar of verse 15. What has remaining in faith got to do with coming out of deception? What has love, sanctification and self control got to do with coming out of the deception? Hardly corresponding phrases?
4. Dave of course I’m interested in truth? But why do you assume that if I don’t accept this interpretation I have no interest in truth? Cheryl constantly asked to be challenged on her interpretation for this precise reason- to get to the truth. I offer such a critique and look what happens! It is frustrating to engage like this. I highly recommend reading that 30 pages of Kostenberger just to actually sit back and realise the complexity of this verse. An overly confident approach to this does nothing but show ignorance of the history of this text.
5. Cheryl’s quote is on this page we are discussing, just scroll up to the top of the page.
Change of topic- fantastic that the Church is growing. Continue to faithfully proclaim the message of the cross to the community at Ryde Dave. And if necessary, stop blogging!!! 🙂
Lydia,
Perhaps you can show me where i have mentioned my understanding of authenteo in verse 12? Assumptions don’t help our discussion.
Nor does what that word mean actually help us understand the difficulties of verse 15. Verse 15 has to be understood on it’s own in relation to the context.
An exegesis cannot be governed around one’s own opinion on what authenteo means driven into every other verse.
Thanks
Dave,
Final point. Let’s take your understading of the conditional clause just for arguments sake.
Let’s assume the (husband) falls away, rejects Christ and shows lack of self control, love and no signs of sanctification.
How then is this decieved false teacher saved? How can she come to know the truth if her husband no longer has any faith?
Now, my guess is that you would say that we don’t know. She could be saved by many various different means apart form her husband. After all, this verse is not saying this is the ONLY way she will be saved.
Why then have this verse? What does it then actually teach? Nothing really, just a hypothetical situation that might just happen in the future, that this woman might just be saved.
Hardly an acceptable understanding of this verse i would have thought?
This woman’s salvation according to Cheryl is conditional on something. Why are you trying to water that down? Perhaps you and Cheryl don’t actually agree at this point.
Here are some quotes of you and CHeryl to show the conflict i see…
You say…”The conditional clause does not say he will be saved even if he does continue in faith, only that she will. This is simply following your logic of how a conditional clause works.”
Cheryl saids…””First of all there is no question on his salvation, just hers”
Cheryl believes that his salvation is not in view. THe clause is ONLY set up for her. To quote her again…
“The conditional clause is set up only for her salvation. ”
But then Dave saids
“Your interpretation of the clause insists that the clause is ‘exclusive’, that the condition supplied is the ONLY way the outcome can occur.
“you claim that because of the conditional clause her ONLY chance of salvation rests not only with her but also the other party.
So Dave, perhaps you and Cheryl need to reconcile the differences. As i see it, you are saying different contradictory things but arguing for the same outcome or interpretation. Cheryl saids the conditional clause is only about her salvation, yet you critique me for not discussing the husband, when in actual fact you are critiquing Cheryl not me.
Remember this is not my interpretation. I’m adopting CHeryl’s and seeing what verse 15 actually then means.
Thanks
Dave,
I would love for you to walk us through your understanding of verse 15, word by word, parsing and commentating.
That would help me understand your position better. At the moment i’m struggling to see how you and Cheryl are saying the same thing.
thanks
Thanks for the replies Mark. I will not bother replying beyond this. I have not got time, nor the desire. I am sorry to not agree with you, but I do not see you pursuing truth at all. You are the person who would not accept dictionary definitions that clearly show submission does not always dictate hierarchy. You created your own definition. Now you are adding your own interpretation and understanding of conditional clauses that go well beyond what the text books say. You say that my two examples are not valid because of the order of the main clause and the conditional clause. So? My texts do not say this makes any difference. Should I just accept that you say it does? Some of your replies make no effort to understand what I am saying. I am wasting my time.
All the best
Dave
Mark,
You said,
“I do admit that this verse is hard. But so does everybody else. It is not a weakness to admit that you don’t understand a certain verse. Since this is the case, we ought to be very cautious of people who think they have a flawless exegesis of this passage. History should tell us otherwise.”
I certainly understand your call for caution. Yet, I have to wonder why you are here to critique Cheryl’s exegesis efforts??
You admit that the verse is considered difficult by the best of exegetes – we all do. You say to Cheryl that “evidence against your interpretation is the writings of church leaders, exegetes theologians.” Yet, clearly, you have nothing concrete to offer or you would have already given THE flawless interpretation every Christian should adopt a long time back on the blog. You have no clear evidence in the verses themselves and no clear concensus among theologians, past or present, to prove her exegesis to be less trustworthy than any other.
So, is your point in commenting here to show that since, in your opinion Cheryl’s interpretation has “holes” in it just like all the others, then sticking to your favorite comp. interpretation is really o.k.?
And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?
Dave,
No worries mate, but just do a quick search on the net at conditional clauses and you will soon discover that the ‘basic greek grammars’ do not have the space or the ability to cover extensively every area including word order etc and what happens if the apodosis preceeds the prostasis.
So no, i am not making up definitions and perhaps you should do some more research on these things before being persistent in your opinion…that way you can pursue more fully the truth which you claim i’m not interested in. Just one example, show me one example in all of Koine Greek, where ‘head’ is used BETWEEN PEOPLE and it means ‘source’. Facts like these decide who is seeking the truth. Have a look here for example and see what unfolds http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf
But i sympathise with you in these debates…truly! But it appears you have trouble with people disagreeing with you. I never made up definitions nor have i now, i used BDAG and the Oxford in our former debate…you just don’t like what they have to say.
Anyways may God bless your faithfulness at Ryde Pressie even though we as sinful men cannot agree on these issues.
Kay,
Thanks for the questions. Yes, i don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is flawless and especially when comments like these are made “My view doesn’t have any holes and, my friend, you haven’t found any holes either. ”
You would think an overtly strong statement like this should be taken cautiously, as i attempt to do. Basically all i am looking for is to try and understand what verse 15 saids.
All Cheryl has stated is that the woman will be saved by being helped out of deception by her husband (the they). But how on earth does it relate to 15b… not at all as i can see. Cheryl draws a correlation with 1:6,7 but the problem is, the four conditions in 15b are not the same as 1:6,7 and the one to correct false teaching in chapter 1 is Timothy not the husband/wives of the false teachers. So the correlation falls apart leaving us with no satisfactory explanation of 15b. You cannot just pick and choose which parts to correlate and ignore the others.
And yes i lean on the traditional views becasue a) there are other better interpretations to help understand this verse and b) no-one in the world in the last 2000 years has come to the conclusion like this (unless you know someone else out there before Cheryl, becasue i don’t) and c) we live in a heavily egalitarian society that has potential to cloud biblical instruction. Combine these 3 and you get me being cautious of this interpretation.
As to not offering any evidence look here as i pointed out to Dave earlier http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/roles_kostenberger.pdf
and look at what Kostenberger saids about this verse.
i am not claiming to have the flawless verse…iv’e stated that all along, i just don’t think Cheryl’s if flawless either. I don’t see why it is a big issue to critique this…everyone is very defensive.
trustworhtiness (is that spelt right?) is a good point Kay, but yes we do have good reason to trust some exegesis over others. External evidence is one. Theological coherence is another and modern cultural tendencies to re-interpret passages is another. A person’s overt confidence in their own exegesis could be another.
Now Cheryl may be right, i won’t know that until i go to be with Jesus, but on the scale of hermeneutics, it is low on the list for the above reasons (and maybe others).
Cheryl may argue that it is flawless, but in reality i doubt many people would think so. It’s a guess on grammar, that’s all.
Anyway, Cheerio, i’ve offered my two cents worth and i hope Cheryl can clear some stuff up once she returns.
P.S I should state that although i strongly disagree here, i find it refreshing to dialogue with egals who do truly have a passion for upholding the Bible. This is most probably what i respect Cheryl the most for. You too Dave! 🙂
Kay, final thought
“And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?”
This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either. There is not one unquestioned theory on the atonement of Christ. Everything is always questioned. Look at critical scholarship, liberalism, denominationalism etc.
It’s as simple as this, don’t claim to have a flawless argument when you don’t. People can get any verse to say whatever they like- again, history teaches us this. It’s a matter of working out what is most consistent and backed up by evidence.
“This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either.”
HUH? Homosexuality is clearly called sin in both the OC and NC scripture. Yes, there is a prohibition on homosexuality
‘”Perhaps you can show me where i have mentioned my understanding of authenteo in verse 12? Assumptions don’t help our discussion.”
I am afraid it is obvious. Authenteo drives the whole meaning of the passage because it is what that ONE woman was DOING.
“or does what that word mean actually help us understand the difficulties of verse 15. Verse 15 has to be understood on it’s own in relation to the context.”
Sure it helps. It is only used once in the whole NT scripture. It is a word that is used in the writings of Chrysotem where he states a husband should not authenteo his wife. It is a very bad thing that NO believer should do to another. Early on it was translated as dominate.
If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate authority over there are plenty of Greek words He would have inspired. But He did not. He used this obscure word.
The entire letter of Timothy is the ‘context’. Not each verse.
“n exegesis cannot be governed around one’s own opinion on what authenteo means driven into every other verse.
”
In this passage, it is quite relevant. And I agree with Dave. This is becoming a waste of time. If you are not willing to even look at authenteo outside of what folks like Kostenberger and Grudem say, then we are wasting our time. I have noted that few masculinists fight for last place in the Body.
“masculinists” LOL – a new word to add to my vocabulary.
An interesting discussion which needs no addition from me other than to say, regarding Cheryl’s exegesis and paraphrasing The Matrix, “there are no holes”.
Mark,
Did you not notice the “?” mark at the end of this sentence??:
I wrote: “And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?”
You replied: “This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either. There is not one unquestioned theory on the atonement of Christ. Everything is always questioned. Look at critical scholarship, liberalism, denominationalism etc.”
…as though what I asked was an argument in opposition to your view. No, brother, I was showing that we agree about constantly checking and questioning scholarship and traditions of men.
This is why blogging can be so time consumming and frustrating! 😉
You say: “People can get any verse to say whatever they like- again, history teaches us this. It’s a matter of working out what is most consistent and backed up by evidence.”
And here again, I can agree to a point. However, I don’t hold to the traditional “evidence” perpetuated by fallible, all male clergy. That is why I’m not a Roman Catholic. (And may I presume that is why you are not either?)
I have previously pointed to the example of the Church’s stance on slavery as a prime instance of the “traditional” understanding on certain Scriptures being wrong for about 1800 years – and so once again!
Just curious – Mark, do you hold the writings of the very early Church (ie. Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome) in the same light as Calvin and those after the Reformation began?
“The entire letter of Timothy is the ‘context’. Not each verse.”
Great point, Lydia. If only folks would just realize that verse numbers and chapters were not part of the original letter and truthfully have no bearing on the intended message!
Mark,
with regards to kephale meaning authority here are some excellent resources.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html
As for the real meaning of kephale, as in all words there is a range of meanings going from head to beginning, origin, foremost, top, source, preeminent and others.
Context is of course most important. In Ephesians 5, what is commonly missed by hierarchalists is that the metephor is between the husband being thought of as head of by the wife AND the wife being thought of as body of by the husband. Thus the meaning there is simply ‘head’ because the metaphor is found in the comparison of ‘head of’ and ‘body of’, not the meaning of kephale itself.
SNIPET fr. McCarthy
“Would it surprise you to know that not even once is kephal? used in connection to any of the authority relationships which we believe God has ordained in the Hebrew scriptures?”
Kay, final thought
“And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?”
This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either.
Not very good reasoning Mark. If there is no prohibition of women teaching and indeed there isn’t, then who are we to create one.
And BTW there are many illustrations of practicing homosexuality being sinful in both the Old and New Testaments. And let’s not distract by going there.
Off Topic:
Lionel Woods > MEN, WOMEN & EQUALITY IN CHRIST: A Bible Conference
@ Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, OK on Sept 19-22. Jon Zens will be giving eight 30 minute sessions, starting Sunday night, with Q & A.
Hmmm, it appears I have trouble with people disagreeing with me. So far only when talking with you Mark! You gave wise advice to Lydia, that assumptions do not help our discussion. Let me say the following…
I have already done research above and beyond the ‘basic Greek grammars’. I have managed to find an extensive research paper on the word order of conditional clauses…but it does not suggest what you are suggesting. You discounted my two examples because of word order. As I said before, you need to do more than simply say “They don’t count, word order!” You are suggesting you have evidence that is specific as to why my examples do not count. Where is the evidence? Why am I still waiting for it?
I never said you were making up definitions. You want an example for Kephale? Where did this come from? Is this part of the discussion? As for the Grudem paper he actually gives evidence in that paper for kephale being used as “beginning” between persons in Greek of NT time. I assume you will fall for Grudem’s trap and believe that what egals mean by source is different to beginning or origin? Grudem is not seeking the truth.
Your definitions have only ever come from BDAG and the Oxford? We went through this before. I gave three/four definitions to your one. Your one you never gave a reference for so I could find the definition myself (though I asked for it). It was different to my Oxford definition. I am not saying you made it up or changed it, but it is very easy to quote only a part of a definition to prove a point. You showed this when you quoted some of my definitions IN PART to try and make them back up your point. Just because they said submission could be to an authority (which I completely agree with) you wanted to ignore that it ALSO clearly said submission could be to anyone.
Not sure why you want us to read the Kostenberg article but I will say there was nothing in it that I had not already considered. Second to that it is crystal clear in that article that he has brought his own agenda to the research he presents. You cite it as evidence to back up your case? He does not even talk about conditional clauses in it.
Luke 4:67 is another conditional clause…this time in your chosen order of preference! Was the only way Jesus could be ruler of all the kingdoms of the workd by worshipping Satan?
Mark, you want to make black white and white black. I have no problem with people not agreeing with me. What I have trouble with is people who are more bent on winning an argument than seeking truth. It has become very clear to me that you do not want to have a discussion where words are accepted by what they mean in the dictionary. You want to make a conditional clause say something it does not. You want kephale to not mean something that it can clearly mean.
I think I have clearly demonstrated why I do not see this discussion worth continuing. If you want to address these issues I have mentioned then perhaps we can get somewhere. I am trying to speak the truth in love. Perhaps you might not see much of either here, but I hope you can.
Dave,
I only have a minute so just a quick comment. I can’t answer whether Grudem is seeking the truth or not, but comparing him against Kroeger what conclusion do you come to?
Did Grudem make up references? Did Grudem include AD greek references to claim for a classical greek definition of kephale? Did Grudem misquote quite badly citations?
C’mon Dave, Kroegers article was sloppy, false and somehow managed to make it into the Dictionary of Paul’s letters…what does that say about supposed Biblical Christianity?
Of course Grudem admits the ‘beginning’ can be the meaning of Kephale, no one denies that, but as the article showed (and which has been pointed out to Suzanne who follows in Kroegers footsteps) the one text is ambiguous adn can legitemately be undertood differently. Plus it’s a 5th Century AD text, hardly strong evidence for the NT.
And no, i don’t believe Grudem or I fall into the trap of making ‘source’ mean something different to beginning- egalitarians do this! It is only a more contemporary argument to combine all the meanings into one, which is of course necessary when ‘source’ isn’t legitimate. Problem is, in what sense is God the beginning of Christ? Sounds like a sub-ordination Christology. In what sense is the husband the beginning of his wife?
Let’s no be too critical of people bringing their agenda’s to the works either…we would be lying if we said no-one had an agenda. The point of Kostenbergers article is to show how difficult this verse is, which in reality makes the ‘flawless’ claim of Cheryl seem unacceptable. Was it not the false teachers in 1 Tim 1:6, 7 who Paul critiques for making confident assertions about what they taught? Let’s learn from this!
More later if i get the chance…
Thank you to those who have prayed for us and wished God’s blessing at this difficult time. I haven’t had time to read most of the comments yet as there is so much to do when there has been a robbery. Today the bank account was changed and we found out that because of the renovations that the insurance company has raised our deductible so that it is more than the replacement of the computer so we are out of luck there.
When things are straightened out again, I will be back to my blog. I am giving my portable computer for my husband to try to reconstruct the files we lost so I am going to be “lost” myself without access to my laptop. I’ll be back later to jump into the fray.
Dave,
Ok, i hope this helps our discussion. You are arguing i think, that the woman’s salvation is not conditional on the husband, despite the fact we have a conditional clause and are further arguing that this is not the ONLY way she could be saved.
I’m arguing that if the ‘she’ is a specific woman, and the ‘they’ are her + husband, then we have a theological dilemma since this means the woman’s salvation is conditional also on the man.
Jeremy Duff saids the following about this type of clause, “Sometimes Greek will use ean+ Subjunctive rather than ei+ indicative in the protasis. [which is what we have here i 1 Tim 2:15) In such a condition, it is still the case that IF the protasis is true THEN the apodosis follows.” (The elements of NT greek, p.226)
Now let’s apply that to the text…
“she will be saved through/by childbearing (apodosis), if they continue in faith, love etc etc (protasis)”
So if the protasis is true (they remain in faith etc) then the apodosis is true (she is saved). Hopefully we agree on this point.
Yet, you protest, “but it does not say this is the ONLY way she will be saved so therefore there is no reason to assume that the husband adds to the wife’s salvation.” (sorry for this attempt at quoting you hypothetically)
So i ask, “well what’s the point of the verse then? Why bother saying that the husband also has to remain in faith, love etc as part of the condition if it is not actually a condition”
To which you respond…
Dave,
I also haven’t had a chance to look at that other reference you gave me, but i thought it important just to highlight again my other point. You used Satan’s speech as proof. For example
‘If you are the son of God, turn these stones into bread”
Now is the meanig the same if we make it the same as 1 Tim 2:15
“you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread”
I suggest that the meaning changes greatly, wouldn’t you agree?
Here is a helpful website to show that the two are actually different types of conditional clauses. http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/conditional_sentences.htm
Mark,
You may find an illustration helpful.
My neighbors Bill and Betty Smith are having some troubles. Betty has been deceived into thinking that fruit and vegetables are bad for her health and so for the last year she has not eaten any. She tries to convince Bill also and has become quite dominating about it. She won’t even allow any fruit and vegetables in the house and becomes abusive if she sees Bill eating any.
Bill, however is a nutritionist and knows that fruit and vegetables are very good for ones health. But he doesn’t try and correct Betty. He just goes out each day and buys and eats his own fruit and vegetables.
Recently, Betty has become very ill and has had several trips to hospital. The doctors have diagnosed her illness as a nutritional deficiency from lack of fruit and vegetables. Bill has remained healthy through all of this because his own diet has been quite good.
The doctors have told Betty that she needs to learn about good nutrition, eat fruit and vegetables, and that Bill needs to help her, rather than not saying anything.
The doctors say that “she will get better, if they do the things they have been told.”
I think I am correct in that Dave’s point is that the doctors are saying that this is the encouraging news so go and do it. The doctors are NOT saying that if the husband doesn’t do his bit that there is no way she can get better. (eg Someone else may be able to help).
Mark, you were also saying @ 89 how Cheryl contradicted Dave, but I think Cheryl was saying that Betty was the only one who was sick – Bill was quite healthy.
Both fit perfectly with each other as I see it.
Anyone feel free to let me know if I have misunderstood anything.
Excellent illustration, Craig. Spot on!
Craig,
I agree with TL, it is an excellent example!
Not only was your example, excellent, but you have done an excellent job of pointing out that making an “if” statement does not say also state the opposite as a fact. It seems like Mark is trying to overstate the case.
That’s all I have time for right now. I will pop in again when I have more time until I am caught up again.
Just a note that God’s nature is that of goodness and what He allows through His fingers for His children has an ultimate goal of good. Not everything we suffer is of itself a good thing, but the end result will always be turned around for our good. We can trust God to do that.
Mark, for what it is worth…you said, “Ok, i hope this helps our discussion. You are arguing i think, that the woman’s salvation is not conditional on the husband, despite the fact we have a conditional clause and are further arguing that this is not the ONLY way she could be saved.”
No, this is not what I am arguing. There is obviously some relationship between the two parties and the hypothetical situation that Paul refers to in the conditional clause is a hypothetical one where the woman would appear to be influenced by the other party. I think Cheryl has explained well what the relationship might be. All I am saying is that it is not ONLY conditional on the husband. The passage does not say it is. You have said it is. As Cheryl has said, you have over stated your case.
You also said,
“ ‘If you are the son of God, turn these stones into bread”
Now is the meanig the same if we make it the same as 1 Tim 2:15
“you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread”
I suggest that the meaning changes greatly, wouldn’t you agree?”
Certainly the meaning has changed, but only because you imported more info into the verse (the word ‘will’ suggests that making bread from stones will be how Jesus can become the Son of God – a new concept). To accurately swap the verse around we end up with, “You are the Son of God, if you turn stones into bread.” I suggest the meaning does not change, wouldn’t you agree?
In regards to your helpful link it provided no new info for me. It gave no evidence that swapping the main and conditional clauses makes an ounce of difference in meaning in any way and definitely not so as to make the passage exclude any other means through which the woman might be saved, i.e. her own faith.
Mark, please either concede the point or bring some evidence to the discussion. Please do not give me any more “helpful” links that provide no evidence. For some reason you wanted me to go and find evidence for how changing the clauses discounts my previous two examples. This is your job Mark. You have failed to do it. The burden of proof is on you.
For the conditional clause to say what you want it would have to say, “She will ONLY be save if they continue…” Bottom line – it does not say this.
I agree Cheryl and TL…well put Craig!
Second thoughts Mark, in regard to your words,
“ ‘If you are the son of God, turn these stones into bread”
Now is the meanig the same if we make it the same as 1 Tim 2:15
“you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread”
I suggest that the meaning changes greatly, wouldn’t you agree?”
As well as import a “will” you did not change the order of the clauses at all but only changed the position of the “if” changing the conditional clause to the main clause and the main clause to the conditional clause. This is NOT what we were talking about. To more accurately render the change of order you should have said, “Turn these stones into bread, if you are the Son of God.” Now, please tell me what difference this makes to the meaning of the sentence and please be specific about what the changes are so we can see how they impact the discussion.
For someone who was going to give up on this discussion I certainly have a lot to ocntribute. I hope it is helpful! Mark you said, “Problem is, in what sense is God the beginning of Christ? Sounds like a sub-ordination Christology. In what sense is the husband the beginning of his wife?”
In answer to your first question, is The Father not the Father of the Son? Did the Father not send the Son? Was not Jesus concieved through the Holy Spirit? Are these things subordination Christology? Beginning, source, origin are all synonyms and they all accurately describe at some point the relationship between Jesus and the Godhead. Sure, you can go the Grudem line if you like and suggest a passage like Colossians 1:18 and say that it is to do about Jesus’ authority over the church, and yet look at the passage from verse 15…Jesus is the source, the origin, the beginning of all created things, including powers and authority(note that!), he is before all things…he is the head of the church (wonder what that means)…”he is the beginning and the first born from among the dead…”!!!
You can believe what Grudem says when he says that Colossians 2:10 is about Jesus being the authority over all authorities (because head means authority over)…but surely given what has just been said in chap 1 that belittles Jesus. He does not just have authority over all authority, but in 1:16 it has been clearly said that he is the source/origin/beginning of all authority. Why would 2:10 mean anything less?
In answer to your second question, was not Eve taken from Adam? 1 Cor 11:8-9. Was the man not the source, origin and beginning of the woman? Now, before you go silly with this, don’t forget 1 Cor 11:11-12. What do you know…every man after Adam finds their begining, source and origin in woman.
Hmmm.I have a feeling I am going to regret this…
Dave,
You said “For someone who was going to give up on this discussion I certainly have a lot to contribute. I hope it is helpful!
It certainly has been for me Dave 🙂
Your comments on Colossians and 1 Corinthians 11 were especially helpful. Thanks.
“You can believe what Grudem says when he says that Colossians 2:10 is about Jesus being the authority over all authorities (because head means authority over)…but surely given what has just been said in chap 1 that belittles Jesus. He does not just have authority over all authority, but in 1:16 it has been clearly said that he is the source/origin/beginning of all authority. Why would 2:10 mean anything less?”
Well put, Dave! – we can’t completely sever God into 3. Comps try making God into an image of their hierarchical human pyramid. As TL said, “No matter what is being done, all are involved to some degree.”
Dave,
Go back to the link and open up your greek NT. You will find that your first example (Satan and Jesus) is a first conditonal clause. Then look at 1 Tim 2:15 and you will see it is a third conditional clause. They are different.
That’s why your example is not satisfactory to prove your case for 1 Tim 2…it’s not an example of the same grammatical construction. I think Luke 4:7 may be the same type of construction but i haven’t had a chance to look at it yet in detail.
Now you are arguing for a hypothetical conditional clause, is that correct? If this is so, then please explain to me what 1 Tim 2:15 is hypothetically saying?
In what way is it satisfactory to substitute “if they remain in faith, love, sanctification and self control” for…
“the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception.”
I cannot concede that this is a satsifactory explanation for this verse, considering what Cheryl has argued in the earlier verses.
Why is the deception the responsibility of the husband not Timothy as per chapter 1?
Regarding the husband being the origin of the wife, beginning may be acceptable for Adam and Eve, but in what way are you the beginning of your wife? Obviously not the smae as Adam and Eve since your wife was not created out of you. This is where your understanding fails.
Also if you argue for a creational understanding for beginning with Adam and Eve, why do you feel you can simply change therefore what ‘beginning’ means in relation to God/Christ? I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus was created out of God stuff. THis is the problem…let’s just change the menaing all the time!
Anyway i’m away for the next week so we’ll speak soon.
Cheers
And so we go once more around the bush…(a Canadian saying I think)…
One is a first conditional clause, the other is a third. Before you give me a helpful link, I am aware that first and third conditional clauses are different, but how is it different and how does that difference demonstrate that the conditional clause and the main clause being swapped suddenly makes the conditional clause mean something different. This is what you stated before. I guess it does not matter because to go back to the original argument, the conditional clause does not say what you are saying it says. You still not have provided evidence for it saying what you claim, as you have added words to the clause.
As to what in 1 Tim 2:15 is hypothetical, is not the conditional clause a hypothetical? They have not yet ocntinued in faith, etc. We do not know if they will. Paul is simply stating what will happen if that hypothetical situation that he describes clearly in verse 15 occurs.
I do not think anyone has suggested that Paul has said that the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception. Just hypothetically Mark, IF you were decieved, you might be able to get your act together all by yourself, but sometimes God uses other people in our lives to help us realise our deception and change.
I do not recall anyone saying the deception was the responsibility of the husband. I am not sure where this is all coming from.
You said, “Regarding the husband being the origin of the wife, beginning may be acceptable for Adam and Eve, but in what way are you the beginning of your wife? Obviously not the smae as Adam and Eve since your wife was not created out of you. This is where your understanding fails.”
But I told you not to go silly and look at 1 Cor 11:11. Is there a comp version of the Bibble that misses this verse? Comps never refer to it, even when you tell them it is there.
You said, “Also if you argue for a creational understanding for beginning with Adam and Eve, why do you feel you can simply change therefore what ‘beginning’ means in relation to God/Christ? I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus was created out of God stuff. THis is the problem…let’s just change the menaing all the time!”
I admit it, I don’t know what you are talking about. Can you just simply respond about the conditional clause? Why all this other sidetrack stuff? What is up the garden path that is so attractive Mark?!?!
Mark,
You know hermeneutical principles involve looking at the larger context of the verses in question. That is why the point about Paul’s instruction on slavery is important in the context of the discussion of women. Just as Paul is “clear” about the submission of slaves, he is “clear” about women being quiet in church in one particular verse.
1 Tim. 2:11-12 are difficult verses – it simply can’t be demontrated that Paul intended them as an *eternal directive* for all “churches” for all times. In fact, the purpose of 1 Timothy as a whole, and these verses in particular, indicate otherwise.
Paul was equally “clear” about his view on the braided style of women’s hair and expensive clothing in Timothy. Is that directive to be viewed as an eternal directive for all women or should that particular verse be viewed as addressing a local issue in the first century? I think we’d both agree it’s particular to the situation of the assembly Paul was addressing.
I realize that some people (perhaps you) see this as hermeneutical arbitrariness or capitulation to present culture, causing us to go against Scripture.
But it’s equally undeniable that our response to 6:1-2 (slaves & masters) and ch.5 (widows) is as well. (we could argue the fine points of those 2 again, but the conclusion is still the same) We don’t live them out to the “letter” of Paul’s directive.
Would you consider that perhaps the answer to the hermeneutical question lies in the area of our obedience to the ultimate concern of the entire text, even if the particulars are not carried out like “rules”?
Yes, we can’t deny that this verse is prohibiting at least one woman of “teach and authentein”-ing at least one man in Ephesus, but it is, without a doubt, a unique text. Which suggests it addresses a unique situation. And I’ve noticed that you are not dogmatically asserting that it is without question an eternal directive for all. Mutualists/egals hold that same view. So, perhaps it’s pointless to continue arguing the “grammars”???
Mark,
If you wouldn’t mind, please read my #99 to you.
Cheryl,
I apologize if it seems I’m making light of looking deeply at the grammar/words/definitions, etc. But my concern for Mark is that he is really beginning to “miss the forest for the trees.”
Mark, you said, “Also if you argue for a creational understanding for beginning with Adam and Eve, why do you feel you can simply change therefore what ‘beginning’ means in relation to God/Christ? I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus was created out of God stuff. THis is the problem…let’s just change the menaing all the time!”
I have thought more about this though I am still confused Mark. If your point is what I think it is, I don’t think kephale when used as a metaphor has to be used in exactly the same way each time. As has been said many times already, metaphors need to be viewed in their context to understand them. It so happens though in this particular instance I do believe that Jesus was created out of God stuff. Not sure if I would put it exactly like that, but I do believe that Jesus the Word was with God before time, but I also believe he was born as a baby 2000 years ago. I believe that he had no beginning yet was concieved by God. I believe he was “eternally begotton by the father”. I have no idea what that means and whether or not it even makes sense, but I think it suggests that as some point in human history Jesus had a beginning.
So in this situation I do not think I am changing the meaning at all. But if I was…so what? Metaphors have different meanings in different places.
Dave,
I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument. You show the classic case by arguing that different metaphors have different meanings. But what about 1 Cor 11:3. Same context, smae structure, same metaphor, yet you argue that each relationship gets a different meaning. I can’t except those type of exegetical backflips to dismiss the clear meaning.
Second, let me ask you an example
Roman 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Is Paul suggesting here that Jesus is not the ONLY way to be saved? What do you say? Are you really happy to follow your logic through here aswell?
This is an important example since.
1. It is also from Paul
2. It is dealing with salvation
3. It is also a future probable conditional clause.
Thanks. I broke my holiday to comment so i shall say no more until i return.
Mark,
In my view you seem to be thinking Paul is suggesting things that he is not actually saying in both 1 Tim 2 and Romans 10.
In both passages he is making perfectly true statements and not suggesting anything about other alternatives. You are trying to make statements mean more than they actually say. You have to read the rest of the bible to find out the answers to your questions.
If Romans 10:9 was the only verse of the bible we possessed, we would not know if Jesus was the only way to be saved. But we do thankfully have the rest of the bible to tell us that Jesus is the only way of salvation.
I agree with Kay that sometimes you need to put away the microscope for a moment, take a step back and look with normal vision, and you may be able to see what’s going on more clearly.
@105
@124
Let’s go straight to the text, nuff said.
His argument about Truth is flawed?? 1) 1 co 11:3 is NOT the same context as Eph 5, and 2) kephale is NOT used as the same metaphor. Do you read a head/body metaphor somehwere in 1 Co 11 (as I can read such a metaphor in Eph 5)? What structure in 1 co 11 do you refer to that is similar to Eph 5? Is the Father, the BODY of CHRIST as the wife is the body of the husband? Help me out here, Mark?
The Father and Son are husband and wife? And how do you compare the husband’s cultural authority over the wife to the Father’s (your belief) over the Son?
Let’s no be too critical of people bringing their agenda’s to the works either
Oh, no, let’s be critical, just enough. Your agenda, Mark is?
to defend biblical truth
Craig,
You lost me.
If we accept Cheryl’s exegesis we have two conclusions as i see it.
1. Verse 15 is simply saying that the wife will be saved by being brought out of decption by her husband.
2. Verse 15 is saying that the wife’s salvation is conditional on someone other than her own actions.
If we take 1, we actually are bringing our own opinion into the text, since nothing in it saids anything about helping the wife come out of deception. Also it ignores the grammar.
Option 2 creates a theological problem, but i cannot see any other alternative if we take the ‘she’ to be a woman and the ‘they’ as husband and wife.
Dave objects and states that i’m reading the conditional clause to ‘exlusively’ since the text does NOT say that this is the ONLY way the woman will be saved.
So i offered Rom 10:9 and i should be able to ask, is this an exclusive statement by Paul? If we say no, we have a theological problem as evanglicals by suggesting that we can be saved by some means other than professing Jesus as Lord. If we say yes, then we agree that this conditional clause is an exclusive statement.
Therefore 1 Tim 2:15 could likewise be an exclusive statement about eternal salvation (as per Rom 10:9)
The only way to avoid a theological problem is to choose option 1 above (which many have on this blog). But anyone can see that the interpretation offered doesn’t match the actual text and grammar.
So we are back to square one. We have an interpretation that does not deal adequately with the grammar, which is what this supposed interpretation offers as its strength.
If this is too much of a microscope, i can understand that, but that is what Cheryl claims as her strongest rebuttal. If it fails the grammar, well…it fails the grammar.
This interpretation can be fluffed up by roses as much as it likes, but the bare facts are that it does not deal adequately with verse 15. It has as much of a problem with this verse, as do all the other interpretations i have seen.
Pinklight,
I haven’t been discussing Eph 5 nor am i going to. All i am simply asking is for you egals to show one clear text that shows that kephale can be understood as source when used between people.
All the egal scholars can offer is one 5th Century text that is disputed and is also not within an adequate timeframe to understand the NT.
Before people begin accusing me of not seeking the truth, you need to reconcile your own rejection of truth by basing whole exegesis on a meaning that is not even attested for in other literature. Hardly strong proof to argue you are seeking the truth!
Dave,
You said
“I do not think anyone has suggested that Paul has said that the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception. Just hypothetically Mark, IF you were decieved, you might be able to get your act together all by yourself, but sometimes God uses other people in our lives to help us realise our deception and change.
I do not recall anyone saying the deception was the responsibility of the husband. I am not sure where this is all coming from.”
Let me answer with Cheryl’s own words…
“The last thing to point out where Paul has made a clear condition is that “they” are to work through these conditions for “she will be saved…if they…” (note Cheryl’s words…Paul has made a clear condition is that they are to work through these conditions…)
“The need for a helper to bring one to faith in Christ is never more crucial than in the issue of deception, for the truth of the matter is that the deceived rarely walk away on their own. The lure of deception is so strong that without help, the trap of the lie will keep the deceived in bondage. The one who knows the truth but who has been silent in correcting the error must now step up to the plate to be a major factor in encouraging the woman who is in sin. His encouragement will help her to step away from the deception and into the light of the truth.”
So the husband has been silent according to Cheryl and must now step up to the plate. In fact, here is a clear example of how verse 15 is simply ignored and replaced by the above quote. So ‘they’ are not to ‘remain in faith, love, holiness and self control’ but “he must step up from being silent, help her out of deception and into the light! Any correlation to the actual text????
Mark, what about the context of 1 Co 11:3, the woman is from the man?
Mark,
How do you know Romans 10:9 is an exclusive statement about eternal salvation. From Romans 10:9 itself, or from your understanding of the whole of scriptural teaching?
“to defend biblical truth”
Mark, to defend biblical truth would be to fight for last place as a servant. Not to continue to focus on some non existent authority or preeminance based on sex organs. And if the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate authority over, He would not have inspired Kephale since there are very clear Greek words for authority.
You are defending personal preeminance. Not a biblical stance.
Mark,
@130 you said
“if we accept Cheryl’s exegesis we have two conclusions as i see it.
1. Verse 15 is simply saying that the wife will be saved by being brought out of decption by her husband.
2. Verse 15 is saying that the wife’s salvation is conditional on someone other than her own actions.”
There is a third alternative. Paul is actually meaning just what he says. He is saying that she will be saved, if they continue in faith…etc.
I gave an illustration @109 that I thought may have been helpful. Cheryl, Dave and TL all thought it was good. Did you read it? Was there any part you did not follow?
“I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument”
Not true. TL gave you this link:
with regards to kephale meaning authority here are some excellent resources.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html
“I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument”
Not true. TL gave you this link:
with regards to kephale meaning authority here are some excellent resources.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html
Mark,
“This interpretation can be fluffed up by roses as much as it likes, but the bare facts are that it does not deal adequately with verse 15. It has as much of a problem with this verse, as do all the other interpretations i have seen.”
So, here again, you acknowledge that in your view, both comps and egals have great difficulties in “all” interpretations.
My question for you then is:
how in all honesty can you continue to use it at all to bolster your view?
Through your own declarations, it has become a moot point for you.
Mark,
Perhaps we could now set aside the moot 1Tim.2 and discuss the other verses comps use to keep their view. By your own admission, this one has already lost any credibility in either arsenal anyway.
Mark, with your example from Romans I really have to say it is not a legitimate example as the construct is not identical to 1 Tim 2:15. Just joking! (but I hope you get the not very hidden message in my joke)
If we go by the words Paul has written in both passages then we can only come to the conclusion we can through other knowledge we bring to the text. Thankfully Paul’s letter to the Romans is an explanation of the Gospel and you can look up for your self the many references and reasons Paul give for how Jesus is the only way to the Father. More to the point as Romans is about salvation through faith, not works of the law I think in chapter 10 the readers know what this belief in Jesus us about and how it works.
Of course in our Timothy passage things are more difficult, but your Romans example is great as it emphasises the point that in 1 Timothy we DO NOT KNOW as much about the context of what Paul is writing. Timothy does. That said, we still have to put things together from the surrounding verses and chapters.
Your example from Romans does NOTHING to support your interpretation of the conditional clause, if that was indeed why you brought it up. You gave two options, Craig gave a third. One option relies on your interpretation of the conditional clause…so can we scrub that option off the ist or are you still going to persist with something you cannot back up?
Mark, your quotes do not show anyone saying that the deception was the responsibility of the husband. They show the need for help to get out of deception and show that people believe the husband was in a good position to and that thus far he would appear to have been quiet. We all have a brotherly/sisterly responsibility to help each other live lives free of deception, but no one has said that the husband is responsible for the outcome. I might add that neither has Paul.
Mark, you claim in your two options that in option one we are ignoring the grammar. If you have found a fault with Cheryl’s grammar then please outline it to us. After all, in option two you are adding info that the grammar does not so we do consider grammar important!
Mark, if you insist on talking about kephale when we are not then please respond to my reading of Colossians. No, it is not using kephals between people, though it is between Jesus and people. To steal some of your points, it is important because it was writeen by Paul too, it uses the same word and it provides a strong argument for kephale not meaning authority over, but the “beginning” or “origin of” authority. I might add that in Colossians 2 it does not make sence (even though it is Grudem’s interpretation) to say that Jesus is the authority over all authority. If you take all authority, then there is no authority left to put over it. However, if Paul is saying that Jesus is the origin of all authority, then that makes perfect sense. Perhaps this would be better left to another post? Cheryl have you ever done one on Colossians and the use of kephale?
Having a good holiday Mark? 🙂
I might just add Mark that I am assuming you are conceding the point about the order of the clauses in 1 Tim 2:15 not making any difference to the meaning. I assume this not because you have conceded the point after overwhelming evidence from me(!) but because your example in Romans 10 appears to be in the same order as the examples I gave that you wanted to discount (I have not checked the Greek though).
I think it helps us believe you are looking for the truth when you tell us you have recognised something as truth. Otherwise it just looks like you have a problem with people not agreeing with you!
That Mom [Karen Campbell] > august 26 podcast: patriarchy/patriocentricity two, part ten ~ Jon Zens and What’s with Paul and Women, part one
Hi Dave,
Before i continue can i ask you to do something. Go back and read over all the comments thus far and see how this discussion has progressed.
Initially, Pinklight did not have an issue with saying the woman’s salvation is conditional on her husband’s behaviour.
TL said something similiar although not going as far as Pinklight simply changing salvation for behaviour since TL saw the theological dilemma suggested.
Craig gave a third suggestion to my former two not realising that point one was Cheryl’s argument not my own.
Then you began to preceed to say i was being too exclusive with the conditional clause.
If you follow the thread thus far, where are we at? There is actually no agreement between anybody, yet you all claim to hold to Cheryl’s view! Which is it? Pinklight’s, TL’s, Craig’s or Dave’s?
What that tells me, is that nobody actually understands Cheryl’s exegesis. Verse 15 is blurring since none of you have argued the same point. Your only common argument is that i am wrong, and you have aproached the discussion saying totally different things.
So we are back to square one. What is verse 15 saying? Which really highlights the main issue, this exegesis does not explain what verse 15 is saying except that the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception and as i have stated, this actually ignores the grammar that is there.
Finally, re Colossians…
Dave you need to show proof that your translation of ‘kephale’ is an acceptable one before you try to argue for it in the context. You cannot just choose a translation that you like and attempt to fit it in while that translation is unsupported in all other literature. Also i’m not interested in discussing kephale any further…i don’t see the point, you’ve proved my case. Rather than giving us proof of source you just jump straight to the text arguing your case unsupported. People may accept Kroegers sloppy scholarship, but that is just an indication of personal agenda’s rather than looking at the evidence. Colossians can easily be understood by the traditional understanding of kephale as many exegetes have shown. So Colossians is not proof for the egal case any more than Eph 5 or 1 Cor 11. You need to provide actual proof for your case not just your own re-interpretation with your own chosen translation.
Kay,
The basics of hermeneutics is to allow the ‘easy’ texts to explain the ‘difficult’ (verse 15).
This has been rejected by Cheryl, who works backwards.
But as i have shown, Cheryl doesn’t actually give a satisfactory explanation for verse 15 instead bringing her own idea of ‘husband helping bring out of deception’ into the text when the text is dealing with remaining in faith, love, holiness and self-control.
I’m not aware of any comp scholars who argue that verse 15 is the key verse in their exegesis, so i have to disagree that we use it to bolster our position. There are many offers of understanding, but i am yet to read any who are as confident as Cheryl that they ‘got it’! Or that they ‘don’t have any holes’.
It is just proper biblical exegesis to let the easy verses unlock the difficult, not vice versa.
Craig,
Re your illustration.
1. Why say he must do x, y, z if someone else can actually do it?
2. Again this is an assumption. A) that a famale false teacher existed. B) she was married and the ‘they’ refers to the husband (what if she was a widow?), C) we are dealing with eternal salvation (according to Cheryl) not someone’s health problems, D) would a doctor really say that she will be healthy if they do… or would he/she say, “Betty, you need to eat healthy if you want to get better”.
I’m not sure we are on the same page here. Let me emphasise the fact that this is eternal destinies at stake. Can we be so hap-hazard just to assume that someone else can bring her out? Can we assume that this is just a hypothetical situation about someone’s eternal destiny?
If we are going to allow this to actually speak about salvation, i think we all need to face the fact that this is a serious verse with serious consequences requiring serious conditions to be met.
Dave,
I’m rather surprised at your dismissal of Rom 10. Maybe you can answer why Romans was written? Do we really know as much as you think?
We are looking at grmmatical construction and the best you offer is that we know more about Romans that we do about 1 Timothy. Really??
Is this not just another assumption becasue you believe that Paul didn’t need to name this false teacher.
Your rejection of Rom 10 speaks volumes, especailly considering the content and construction and it’s direct parallel with sozo.
You offered un-similar examples and then totally reject a direct parallel discussing the same outcome of a condition being met.
I’ve had it… we agree to disagree i guess.
Cheerio
Mark,
To just use Pinklight as an example, yes, she has asked you why you have an issue with believing that the salvation of the woman might be conditional on her husband. I do not have a problem with this. It is, after all, a conditional clause that we have been talking about. The issue is whether or not the conditional clause limits this to be the only way that she can be saved. I believe we have been united in saying to you that, no, it does not dictate the only way she can be saved.
Now, despite all your claims to the contrary you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for saying that the conditional clause means this is the only way she will be saved. For the conditional clause to say this we have to insert more information. Please show evidence for why the conditional clause becomes exclusive. I have provided info to the contrary, especially in the light of the fact that you now do not seem to mind the order of the main clause and the conditional clause.
So, I believe there is agreement from Pinklight, TL, Craig and myself. I hope the others correct me if this is not so. The fact that you think we are not suggests to me that either you do not understand Cheryl’s exegesis, or you simply do not want to try to. Cheryl’s exegesis does explain the verse. You keep saying it ignores the grammar there, but I assume that is because you want the conditional clause to say something it is not.
With regards to your response to Colossians, all I can say is you have to be joking! How do you explain Jesus being the source of all authority in one verse and then only the authority over all authority in the following chapter? How do you explain Jesus being the authority over all authorities? That does not even make sense! You said, “Dave you need to show proof that your translation of ‘kephale’ is an acceptable one before you try to argue for it in the context.” Oh, well that is not fair(!) because Grudem has not shown proof of his translation being acceptable and all I have done is give proof that it is not acceptable. This is exactly what you claim to have done to Cheryl’s exegesis, my fine young gander!
With regards to Romans 10, I offered more than simply the grammatical construction. We have the context for both verses, and Romans was written to a church. It is therefore in a very different genre to the letter to Timothy. Paul was writing hoping that all the Roman Christians would understand where he was coming from. I believe he was writing about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it’s power to save through faith. Are you denying this? If this is the case then don’t we take the verse in Romans 10 in the context of all that Paul has said in Romans 1-9?
In Timothy though we have a letter written to one man. We do know from the context that Paul is helping Timothy with a few things, false teachers etc. But do we know exactly what is happening with this situation between one woman and another party? Nope. So we put it together as best we can. Are you denying that the verses are regarding one woman and another party? If so then prove you case.
You said, “You offered un-similar examples and then totally reject a direct parallel discussing the same outcome of a condition being met.” You must be joking! You have NEVER EVER proved that my examples were un-similar and the one you have offered is un-similar in exactly the same way! Not only that, your direct parallel does not prove your point. To go back to your original question regarding Romans 10, “Is Paul suggesting that this is the only way you can be saved?” In that verse alone, no he is not. As I answered before, thankfully we have the rest of Romans to explain how it is that we are ONLY saved. Do you have a problem with this?
You have had enough eh? Enough of trying to bluff your way through? I guess it can be tiring!
Blessings!
Mark,
You said @147
“Why say he must do x, y, z if someone else can actually do it?”
Why tell Peter to go and tell the gospel to Cornelius if someone else can actually do it? God sometimes uses people to help others. This doesn’t mean God couldn’t find another way if he needs to.
You said
“Again this is an assumption. A) that a famale false teacher existed. B) she was married and the ‘they’ refers to the husband (what if she was a widow?)
If the available evidence points to the truth of a matter, sometimes it is reasonable to make an assumption that it is true. If it smells like a banana, tastes like a banana, and looks like a banana, then it may be reasonable to believe that it is a banana. Making assumptions isn’t wrong, – both comps and egals do it. But we need to realize they are assumptions and check out the evidence for them before believing them.
You said
“we are dealing with eternal salvation (according to Cheryl) not someone’s health problems”
Yes this is true. It is an illustration.
You said
“would a doctor really say that she will be healthy if they do… or would he/she say, “Betty, you need to eat healthy if you want to get better”.
I think if the doctor knew he was a nutritionist and could be a significant help in her recovery that it would be quite natural to say the former.
You said
“I’m not sure we are on the same page here. Let me emphasise the fact that this is eternal destinies at stake. Can we be so hap-hazard just to assume that someone else can bring her out? Can we assume that this is just a hypothetical situation about someone’s eternal destiny?
If we are going to allow this to actually speak about salvation, i think we all need to face the fact that this is a serious verse with serious consequences requiring serious conditions to be met.
Cheryl’s interpretation doesn’t seem at all haphazard or hypothetical to me, and seems quite serious, but encouraging, in the solution given to the problem at hand.
Yeah, the Aussies have taken over the blog! I declare this blog to be the property of the Commonwealth of Australia…
I thought it might be good to sum up the discussion thus far. If Mark is still listening he might like to comment on how accurate it is.
*Cheryl has given her exegesis of the passage in question.
*Mark has claimed that the grammar means Cheryl’s exegesis provides a theological dilemma.
*Others have suggested that Mark’s claim regarding the grammar (the conditional clause) is incorrect. Evidence was given proving the claim was incorrect. evidence was rejected by Mark for reasons he appeared to make up. He never provided evidence for rejecting the examples given, except for his own example where he did not even swap the main and conditional clause but actually change the conditional clause to the main clause and the main to the conditional.
*Mark has taken us on a merry trip up the garden path (all the way to the kephale (which he no longer wants to talk about) and back) but has only been able to bring one piece of evidence to back up his claim – Romans 10:9.
*But Romans 10:9 fails to back up his statement because as a conditional clause it DOES NOT state that the only way to be saved is through belief in Jesus. Thankfully though Paul did not leave the Roman church in doubt as to the only way to be saved!
*Mark has huffed and puffed about how none of us agree with each other but has failed to provide evidence for this. He has claimed people are saying the salvation of the woman is the “responsibility” of the husband, whis is not what has been said.
*Mark has claimed CHeryl is arrogant about her exegesis being correct and yet has forgotton that her words were in response to his claim he had found holes in it – which he had/has not.
*After giving not one reasonable piece of legitimate evidence to back up any one of his claims Mark has bowed out.
Well researched Dave. Thanks….. now back to Saturday business!! 🙂
Hi everyone! I am back online and will be going through these posts over the next couple of days to give answers to the questions and challenges.
Dave said:
I surrender!
The Aussies have definitely taken over the blog but I am so happy that you are all here!
Great to have you back Cheryl! I had hoped that a takeover might bring you back (I had secretly hoped for graphics too)! I hope everything is getting sorted for you.
Also a note for those who have been praying for me. The Lord is SO good! We received back part of what we lost in the robbery. We received a call from a large department store that found a cloth bag (which had also been stolen from us) in their parking lot and in it were the important papers we lost as well as all of the checks that had been written out to the ministry except for the last three that had come in which were not returned. Unfortunately we did not get the computer back or any of the purchases we had made that were swiped, but to get the ministry funds back was an amazing miracle! PRAISE the LORD!
I lent my laptop to my husband so that he could get his work done, but praise to the Lord that there is another one on the way to arrive on Monday so sometime on Monday I should be back to normal.
For those who have expressed sadness with me over our loss, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your care and your kind words.
Greg, you said that those who are against me will likely see the events that happened as us getting what we deserved (my summary of your statement). I agree with you. I am sure that there are brothers and sisters in Christ out there who were glad for our trial. Some have no heart for other Christians who do not believe as they do on secondary issues and will rejoice in evil. But God has promised that all things will work together for good to them who love God and are called according to His purpose. We are already seeing good brought out of evil and some of that is in character building and we can rejoice and praise God for that too.
God has also gifted us with a brother and sister in the Lord whom we have never met but who have stood with us in this trial. Through their gracious gift we have a good portion of what was taken from us restored. Because God placed it on their hearts to share with us, we have a new computer purchased and on its way. To God be the glory for the GREAT things that He has done! My heart is ever thankful for the land of Australia and for everyone who has supported us through their kind thoughts, their prayers and their support. You will reap a reward from the Lord for your sacrificial giving of your hearts toward us in ministry and especially during this difficult time.
Hey Pastor Dave! Glad to see you online and welcoming me back!
I hope you like the Aussie flag that I found. A big thumbs up to all my Aussie friends!
I am also sharing an updated photo of our office addition.
There is still sand on the floor of the office and it is getting a good watering in preparation for the next pour of cement. We are expecting that it will be ready for lock up in 4 to 6 weeks so that is encouraging.
Dave,
I thought your summary was bang on correct. I find it an odd thing about Mark. He has no answers for 1 Timothy 2:15 and freely admits that but he is willing to bluff his way through a challenge of my view. Now don’t get me wrong. I am very willing to handle any challenge to my view from those who think there might be a hole in my argument. But I expect honesty in the challenge and I am amazed at how an opposing viewpoint to patriarchy can be attacked in an illegitimate way just because my exegesis of the passage causes them to feel threatened. It appears that I must be knocked down in order for them to retain their privileged position.
I will be happy to answer the challenge. Perhaps one challenger at a time. I also want to make a distinction between challengers. Gengwall appears to honestly want to know the truth and is willing to challenge me from a place of wanting truth. As far as Mark, he answers few questions and when his questions are answered he admits to nothing and leaves for a time just to come back with a trumped up piece of grammar that he cannot prove from any respected grammar book. This kind of argumentation appears to me to be a sign that he doesn’t really care as much for the truth as he does for his own position. I certainly could be wrong about this. But if I am wrong, Mark has done nothing to show me his love for the truth when he presents invalid “grammar” arguments as if his opinion is worthy of being believed without giving valid documentary evidence. I find that incredibly sad that smoke and mirrors used as a bluff can be thought to be a worthy argument. What I think is that those who use a bluff to bolster their position actually make those who love the truth to lose respect for them.
More responses tomorrow. I will need time to actually read through all the comments that I missed.
Going back to @Mark #41, you said:
It isn’t the exegesis that is troublesome at all. It is the very words of Paul that have been troublesome for Paul never used sozo in his epistles for anything else but spiritual salvation. Paul also connects the source of the salvation to the promised seed who is the sin bearer. The troublesome issue is that the grammar depends on having an alive person who can be a part of the conditions. Certainly all women cannot be a part of the conditions of one woman. But can a husband staying in the faith be a major factor in keeping her in the faith? Or can it be said that if he leaves the faith then it will be difficult for the one who has already experienced deception to stay in the faith if he leaves? As Christians we need support and at times a brother in Christ can rescue us from the fire where we have been caught and held by deception or sin. (Jude 23) It is a biblical doctrine that some need help to be pulled from the fire. One cannot be qualified to be a “puller” out of the fire if the “puller” is one is in the fire himself.
I find it incredibly revealing that you have no answers to any of my questions on this issue including the conditions that Paul sets up for “they”. You accept faith and love and seem to deny that help is needed in the issue of deception.
Perhaps you would rather see the Bible say that those who are in the “fire” with “defiled garments” do not need help getting out? That they have no need of being pulled out at all as a condition? But the Scripture says otherwise and in Jude 23 it says that we are to save them “with fear”. Why “with fear”? It is that in saving them from the “fire” we do not become encompassed by that fire and fall in ourselves. Jude 23 fits in very well with the condition of 1 Timothy 2:15.
There is no exegetical hole at all in my argument. Coming out of her deception is what her salvation is. One cannot be saved and be spiritually deceived. It is necessary to come out of the deception in order to be saved. If you cannot see that and think that this is a “hole” in my argument, then it appears that you are failing to “see” on purpose. That greatly concerns me. Those who do not have an agenda haven’t had a problem seeing my point. They do not see a “hole” that you alone see. And it is also interesting that while you see “holes” that are not there, you have no idea who “she” is or who “they” are in 1 Timothy 2:15 and neither can you explain why there is a condition required of “they” for the salvation of “she”. My explanation makes perfect sense in the context of deception. Your context of the stopping of true teaching and the shutting up of true godly teachers makes a huge contradiction with the entire Bible. Can you name one godly true teacher whom Paul stopped from teaching? Where are the NT church councils who were set up to judge godly women who were caught teaching the truth of the gospel? Please tell us more about the serious sin of teaching the truth of God’s Word!
If I could interpret this statement, I would say that you are not here to answer questions or to prove your point nor are you here to have your point challenged by us. You are here just to throw stones at my exegesis. I welcome honest stones and any stones sent from those who love the truth. Your stones have missed their “mark” and when you fudged a knowledge of grammar that you couldn’t prove, your stones actually exploded on your side of the fence. If one has to make up grammar to prove their point, then their point is not worthy of consideration. I still consider you my brother in Christ, Mark, but your tactics are not wise. It seems that my exegesis has caused you a great amount of discomfort and fear and you are responding in that fear. I will pray for you that God will help you to accept what God’s Word says in context even if it goes against the tradition that you have lived your life by. Godly Christian women have many things to teach men that God has gifted them with. When men are willing to accept what God has given to them through the human vessel of a woman, men are strengthened in the faith. When they reject God’s gift because it is housed in our of God’s female “sons” then they are found to be resisting God and His gifts. I would implore you to fear God enough to desire truth more than anything that male privilege can give you.
I love a critique, but you have given a falsified critique that has been made up in your own mind as a grammar rule that doesn’t exist. I do not welcome lies because I fear God enough to want only truth. And as far as your exegetical view on 1 Timothy 2:15, you have not offered one. You admit that you don’t know what the verse means. How then can you know for sure what it doesn’t mean when you have to invent a grammar rule to try to force a hole into my argument? Mark that is a shame. Don’t do that. Who is ever going to believe a word you say when you stoop this low? No wonder you do not want to engage in an exegetical argument.
It is a weakness when you have to tell an untruth to try to tear down an exegesis that you don’t like. And it would be an untruth for me to say that I don’t understand this verse. I believe with all my heart that God put the verse in the Bible for it to be understood. My position makes sense and since no one yet has showed where my view cannot fit into the natural sense of the passage from Paul’s context of an individual letter to his ministry friend who knew all about the situation regarding false teachers and false doctrine, then my view stands so far as the only view I have ever come across that does not have holes. Poke away if you want, but don’t tell lies in order to poke. Fair enough?
To continue to Mark,
No need to be cautious of “people” at all. If the exegesis is not flawless then it should take nothing at all to find the flaws. You have not managed to do so, Mark, although you have huffed and puffed and tried to blow down the house. It still stands.
When you make a “claim” of Greek grammar, you will be expected to back up your claim. If you do not want to back up your claim, then perhaps you shouldn’t make the claim that you have knowledge that you don’t have.
The fort has received no viable attack yet, but you are welcome to find a real challenge for me if you find one in the future. It is not an attack to ask questions of the opposition. It is also not an attack to ask for proof of a claim that is made by the opposition. Labeling these things as an “attack” actually reveals the weakness of your challenge and by your own admission you don’t have a position on the disputed text.
Read my comments above.
Mark, that is the nicest thing that you have said to me in a long time. Thanks!
Paul’s revelation that he was himself in unbelief when he acted as a blasphemer, a persecutor and an insolent man (insolent person, violent aggressor, especially of one who takes a superior attitude and mistreats others out of his own revolt against God’s revelation of truth- Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (387), was a self revelation of his sin.
Paul’s humility shows his changed nature. But God never ever exposed the name of an ignorant deceived teacher. Paul in humility showed that he himself was like those who are in his shoes, but Paul, just like God, never revealed their names of the ones who were not deliberate deceivers.
Chapter 1 deals with false teaching and false teachers. If chapter 2 deals with the stopping of a true teacher teaching the truth of God’s word, then where does God ever set up a law that stops the teaching of the truth? This understanding flies against the very nature of truth and the God of truth.
@Mark #42
Honestly, I find this amazing. You were so anxious to go through these passages with me verse by verse, now you have changed you mind and do not want to receive the exegesis. Alrighty then, I get the message. It is another subject that you don’t want to discuss exegesis with me.
You are very gracious Cheryl! I will continue to read with interest as I usually do…but work demands my attention so I might not comment much now you are back. I appreciate the truth and love with which you are talking to Mark. I hope he does too!
@Mark #43
Unsupported? No true at all but seems to be your wishful thinking. Did you seriously not read the post on the anaphoric? http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/03/a-woman-anaphoric/ You made no comment on it. Now try to suggest that it is unsupported.
Chapter one has Paul showing that there were many deceive false teachers in Ephesus. What we would need to uncover for your interpretation would be documents that shows that a true teacher teaching the truth of God’s word was ever silenced by Paul. That certainly would validate your interpretation, don’t you think? Why is there no evidence of such a silencing of the truth?
I believe that you are very hesitant to accept my exegesis because you love having a special position as a man and you would rather see the silencing of the truth of God’s word by a true and godly teacher who is a woman rather than have your special position shared with women.
Dr. Jon Zens is a huge supporter of my work and he sells my DVDs in his bookstore. Dr. Daniel Wallace also has my DVDs and has not pointed out the flaws in my argument and it is he that has written about the anaphoric grammar which I quoted in my last article. His own work proves that an indefinite noun should be taken as definite in certain circumstances.
Dr. Scott Heine is a comp who found my arguments to be very persuasive and who gave me a very high recommendation on my DVDs. He did not correct the grammar either that I used. Dr. James Willingham is also a huge supporter or my work and has asked permission to write the forward of my book. He has five or six doctorate degrees if I remember right. Dr. B A. Di Gilio is also a supporter of my work and there are several others with doctorate degrees which escape my memory right now. For all of those who are reading this, please forgive me for failing to remember all of you.
As far as the supportive pastors, I wouldn’t even try to name them all. There are far too many.
@Dave #162,
Thanks for giving of your time and effort to hold the fort while I was not able to be here. It is so greatly appreciated! I hope you will read when you can and pop up whenever God gives you a word for us.
I hope he does too. I have given him far more opportunity on this blog than any comp has ever been given, even to the point of letting him write one of the posts. I will continue to pray for Mark as he works on his biblical studies in school. I believe that without help, a help that Mark himself will accept, he will never come out of his patriarchal box. But I do believe that God in His Sovereignty can bring an acceptable “helper” into Mark’s life who Mark will listen to. I will pray for that fervently so that Mark and his family of daughters will not be subjected to ungodly restrictions but that they will be freed to serve God as He gifts them. Oh for God to open the eyes and ears of more godly men who will set their own reputation aside in order to fight for their sisters in Christ to have freedom to serve the body of Christ.
Hats off to you Pastor Dave, you are one of my heroes! And a godly Aussie at that!
I am going to be working on the next post and also will be working through any comments here that need attention.
It is an exciting day that God is ABLE to work all things out for good to them that love God and are called according to His purpose. What a day to be alive and share in the work that God has for His people. This IS the day that the Lord has made. We will rejoice and be glad in it. I have such a joy of the Lord in my heart. Tonight it rained and God produced the most beautiful rainbow that I have ever seen. It went from the sky right down the mountain and into the trees. A marvelous sign of God’s care and His ability to control and bring good into our lives.
Off Topic: That Mom [Karen Campbell] > september 1 podcast: patriarchy/patriocentricity two, part eleven ~ Jon Zens and What’s with Paul and Women, part two
quiet here. 🙂
“What you are actually proposing is that this woman’s salvation is conditional on what both her and her husband believe and do. This is not inline with other clear biblical teaching and therefore must be rejected. It undermines the gospel and salvation and the promise of nothing separating us from God. It undermines the very heart of the gospel.”
Mark # 87 “What has remaining in faith got to do with coming out of deception? What has love, sanctification and self control got to do with coming out of the deception?”
Craig’s illustration #109 Great illustration!
I am coming to this discussion rather belatedly, but thought I’d add my 2 cents worth anyway.
First, I am so sorry you had that robbery to deal with, Cheryl, but happy you got alot of the money back.
Next, I think Craig’s illustration, if Mark would simply have paid attention to it, would have solved his reservations.
I’d like to go further on that illustration. If the wife’s view against eating fruits and veggies was so strong she managed to convince her husband, neither of them would end up with good health.
In the same way, if the deceived woman convinced her husband that she was right and they both followed the route of deception, neither of them would be saved.
The husband’s influence–whether he remains a Christian, or yields to deception–is very important for his wife’s salvation. As long as he stands firm, she has a much better chance at salvation, especially if she, with her false view, is silenced, and she can hear the truth in church, too. If he folds, both of them will likely go at breakneck speed down the path to hell, and neither of them will likely be open to the truth.
While it is true that either one of them could be brought to the faith by the testemony and teaching of someone else, once they both believe a lie, it is that much more reinforced which makes it more likely neither of them would come to the truth.
Also, although it takes us slightly off topic, I would like more discussion about Eve in I Tim 2:15. Although I agree this is not about a dead Eve, I do suspect Eve is included in the verse, and would like to know what you think. According to Hebrews 11 hall of faith, & other passages, which I won’t take the time to look up, people in the OT were saved by looking forward to Jesus. So although Eve is not listed in Hebrews 11, it is possible she was saved through looking forward to Jesus, and that she lived out her life in faith, etc. Because of his offering, it appears Abel was saved. Can we assume Adam and Eve also offered the “firstling of (their) flock and the fat thereof.”? We know Adam and Eve had coats of skins which God had made, which suggests that animals had already died/been killed or offered to God.
Jocelyn Andersen has suggested that Eve was saved via this route and that Adam was an abusive husband. God prophesied that Adam would rule over Eve, and that her turning would be to her husband. I take this to mean that she longed for him to be warm and loving like he was in the beginning, and that he ruled over her instead.
In Gen. 4:1 after Cain was born, Eve said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” Was this just a comment, an exclamation, perhaps aimed at regaining her husband’s love, or does this suggest Eve already knew that salvation would come through THE childbearing of a particular SON? (Note that God’s reaction to the offerings of Cain & Able suggest that they already knew what God wanted for an offering.) Does it suggest that she is already thinking Cain would be The Savior who would put things back to the way they were, bringing her forgiveness for sin, and get rid of the curse? Or does this suggest that she had no idea that a man’s seed is required to bring forth children, and thought this child was a miracle child from God?
As I consider this, I realize that comparing I Tim 2:15 with Eve’s story can actually add insight. Why would Paul bring up Eve, except that she was deceived, just like you said Cheyl about the woman in I Tim. A deceived person doesn’t get it. And the more they talk and defend themselves, the more they convince themselves they are right.
It is a detail Psychologists have discovered; a person tends to believe the words that come out of her/his own mouth–especially if they repeat them many times. A person can convince themselves that a lie is the truth, just by repeating it over and over. So when comps repeat the same stuff over and over, they convince themselves even stronger than before. Therefore, we need to speak to them in ways where they are not given prompts that cause them to insist on their view. (just a little info on the side.)
Paul recognized this truth in his day, and silenced the deceived woman, even telling her to not be in authority over her husband, that just like Eve, it would lead this woman to transgression. It could also lead her husband to sin, but both would be saved through Jesus if they continue on in faith.
TL,
Yes it has been very quiet here. I have been so overwhelmed, it has been almost impossible to carve out time even to read the comments. I can see from the questions (from Craig’s question that I have been meaning to answer) and from Waneta’s question, that I will need to spend some quality time in answering them. If God grants me that time, I will try for this week during my evening “down” time.
Here is what has been keeping me hopping busy:
My front yard is now completely destroyed with the renovations. I am the resident ditch digger, wood stainer and go-for girl along with keeping all the other important home things together. I am working outside as much as 10 hrs a day so that we can keep the costs down. Everything has been coming at us at once in the last week. This coming week my front yard is supposed to be replaced with a semi-normal look and then a tent is to be set up for the workers to begin work on the front. Meanwhile the new roof has not been shingled and the rain is coming in which makes it very hard to keep up with the staining of the wood. But the new roof can’t be installed until I have the wood stained. The outside work should be done in about 4 – 6 weeks so I am really hoping that if my life doesn’t get back to normal before then, at least after the crew all leaves, I can schedule a blogging time for myself so that I can get out all that is inside my head and heart.
In the meantime this is what I can look forward to more of tomorrow morning, come rain or shine:
There goes my concrete front steps and any semblance of order. At least for a few weeks.
If you remember me, pray for my sanity 😉
Waneta,
You said:
Thanks for your thoughts! We are also very grateful for God’s provision. We also needs God to sustain us as far as recreating our lost files as it was the worst time for the theft. We are in the middle of a big reno project to create office and studio space for our ministry and having to go back through piles of paperwork to recreate the lost files has been extremely challenging during this time. We are still not caught up but getting closer. It is amazing at how much we rely on computers and when there is such a disruption how it can affect our lives. But God knows all of this and He will not give us more than we can handle. Although I am extremely overwhelmed, I am handing everything from one moment to another. And I am learning to live in God’s grace for good things can come through God’s hand as we continue to learn to lean not to our own understanding.
praying for you sanity….. and mine. Life has been just wacky and sometimes in a somewhat painful way. 🙂
hugs around in Jesus!
Hi everyone,
I have been having a discussion about 1 Tim 2 with a comp friend. He is in 1st year theological college. He asked his Greek lecturer about some of the things I had mentioned. My friend has relayed to me his lecturer’s comments but admits he may not have understood everything perfectly. I was wondering if there are any Greek experts out there with any thoughts? My friend wrote:
“1. re: The identity of the woman in v14b
a) The conjunction ‘gar’/for at the beginning of verse 13 marks quite
strongly the start of a new clause. Therefore the most natural context
for ‘the woman’ in v14b would be in verse 13, that of Eve. It would
seem strange to go all the way back to verse 11 to refer to the woman.
b) As to the anaphoric use of the article, my understanding of what he
said (but not totally confident) was: An article by itself can refer
back to a previous noun that matches gender (kind of like a relative
pronoun). This use is only one of many options for the article which
can be quite flexible. Either way, in light of above, it seems more
natural for ‘the woman’ to refer to Eve in the more immediate context
of verse 13 rather than all the way back in v11, especially going
across the gar conjuction. As to why he called her ‘the woman’ rather than
“Eve”, it could be that he wanted to have a faint echo of v11? Hope that
makes sense.
2. The perfect verb in v14b
The translation of the perfect as a ‘completed verbal action that
occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result
that exists in the present’ is apparantly a slightly out-dated idea.
The more recent understanding is that verbs centre on verbal aspect
rather than time/tense as they do in English. Please ask about this if
you want me to try and explain verbal aspect more … anyway from the
verbal aspect perspective, verse 13 – 14 has the 3 or 4 aorist’ verbs
then one perfect verb of ‘to become’. This would suggest that the
Aorist verbs are kind of like the background story while the perfect
verb is emphasised as the ‘main point’ of the phrase. This is in
contrast to understanding Greek verbs as primarrly describing
tense/time so to ask if the woman was alive isn’t really the right
question to ask of the verb.
3. As to the translation of v11-12, he said given that it the noun for
woman is singular and indefinite, it would more likely be a general
statement rather indicating than a specific woman in Ephesus (though I
think he said that was a possibility).
4. He did briefly defend the NIV translation of verse 15 but it was
quite brief and I can’t actually remember what he said … sorry!
Any quick comments from anyone would be appreciated before I attempt a reply. Thank you.
I don’t think I get his answer on #1. How can vs. 11 be referring to Eve. Eve is dead. How can she learn and be silent learning, etc.
Hi TL,
He is meaning that he believes that v14b refers to Eve rather than to a specific Ephesian woman.
This is the “meat” of the reply I am planning to send today.
“Thanks for the work you have done on this. Some thoughts that come to mind.
I agree that any language can be “more of an art in choosing from a number of possibilities rather than an exact science”.
I agree that by itself, the term “the woman” in v14b could refer to Eve, but I am not sure that I agree that it is the most natural or that v11,12 are “all the way back”. I could be talking to you about a woman, and then give a reason for her not to do something that could take several sentences to explain. But when I come back and mention “the woman” again you would know exactly who I am talking about.
Are you sure the lecturer is not making more of the “gar conjunction” separation than really exists? Paul seems to obviously be continuing on the same subject and giving the reason for what he has just said. There is no big separation that I can see. A new clause doesn’t mean the same thought process can’t continue. It is not a whole new subject. In the light of what I just said, the anaphoric use of the article would seem to very naturally refer back to the woman he is talking about in v11,12.
Are you really convinced about the faint echo idea?
Is your lecturer saying that the perfect verb can’t be referring to the Ephesian woman or just that it can be referring to Eve?
My understanding is that “woman” in v11,12 is singular but it is not quite accurate to call it “indefinite”. It is just “woman” and there is nothing “indefinite” in the Greek. It can be a specific woman or a general statement about women and we need to follow the whole passage to work out which it is. Greek experts on both sides that I have read indicate that there is nothing in the Greek of v11,12 to indicate specific or general. Look at Jn 4:7, Luke 8:43, 13:11. Is “woman” referring to a specific woman or women in general? There are numerous examples like this.
I would like to hear his defence of the NIV on v15. My understanding is that the Greek changes very clearly from 3rd person singular (she) to 3rd person plural (they). Does your lecturer know of any other time in the whole bible where 3rd person singular should be translated as plural? Any other time in Greek literature? If he finds one or some, is it common? One in a thousand? One in a million? What is the reason to translate it in a one in a million way? Why not just translate it as it actually says? Is it that it may not fit in with what they think the passage means? I think a better approach is to accept and try to understand what Paul actually wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit. ”
Any other thoughts would be appreciated. I am no expert at all on these things. Thanks.
The first point about the “gar” for, reflects poorly upon the theological Greek lecturer! “Gar” is translated as: “for”, “because”, “actually”, “after all” etc.
So, yes it marks the beginning of a new clause BUT it strongly links it to what just went before. STRONGLY! We only use words such as “because” when we are continuing to talk about the same thing, but are giving further explanation.
“Either way, in light of above, it seems more
natural for ‘the woman’ to refer to Eve in the more immediate context
of verse 13 rather than all the way back in v11, especially going
across the gar conjuction.”
I think this is a week argument too. Mainly because that if we accept that “the woman” is Eve then it does not make logical sense. I have heard this type of reasoning before, and I usually conclude that what it comes down to is, “I am uncomfortable with what you are suggesting and so I will place great weight on weak arguments to wriggle out of being challenged about my position”!
Logically, with the way the “gar” should work you should be very prepared to go across it. If you seperate it you will not understand the point or reason for Paul saying what he is saying. This is how the “gar” functions.
Thanks a lot Dave. That is very helpful.
I am just thinking of a hypothetical situation to help clarify things. 2 sources of confusion are that Paul uses Eve (a woman) in his reason for the prohibition and this passage is dealing with a controversial subject. I wonder if the same objections would occur if say an Ephesian woman was being physically violent to her husband. Could Paul have used the same sort of Greek language saying
“I do not permit a woman to be violent to a man. For Cain killed Abel. The woman has become a sinner. She will be …..if they continue……”
If Paul had written something like that I wonder whether there would be any objections to the Greek being understood in the natural way. Would “the woman” and “she” of 14b and 15 seem too far away from “woman” in v11,12? Would the anaphoric reference seem to naturally refer to the woman of v11,12 or would the conjunction “gar” make this impossible? I wonder….
I replied to my friend so I will wait and see what he says. Thanks again Dave- I used your thoughts in my reply- I hope they are not copyright 🙂
I decided not to use my ramblings in #179. I felt confused reading back my own ponderings!
Did anyone have any thoughts about the “perfect verb” in #173? I am afraid my friend lost me a bit with his explanation.
Thanks.
http://andrewhongnsw.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EEB36B88C6BA62C4!2488.entry
The above link is to a blog that has some info on verbal aspect theory. I wonder if it mentions the theological college where this lecturer is at? 🙂
I will try and keep reading stuff about it, but what I have read does not really back up what you are saying the lecturer has suggested. For starters, the verbal aspect theory does not throw out everything we know about verbs and how they operate. I will keep reading…!
Some people have big questions about verbal aspect theory http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2008-November/047956.html
I hope an expert comes along to make a comment soon, but one of the concerns I have with things like this theory is that it provides an opportunity for people to throw into doubt a Biblical truth by quoting a ‘theory’ that is still not widely accepted, that has been shown to not be applicable in all situations, and that they will apply it even when the context of the passage in question does not lend itself to it’s application.
So, even when I read stuff by Con Campbell (the Moore College guru on the subject) I cannot see how verbal aspect theory impinges on our understanding in this passage as it is different to the examples he uses. It is different because according to them the verbal aspect must change in the middle of the story in 1 Tim 2
:14-15. Unless of course the woman is not Eve. I think the same rules have to apply.
If we see the verbs as temporal then the change in tense and the use of logic show we are talking about a different person. If the verbs are aspect related, then we have a change of aspect in the middle of the discussion. This must signify something! The stuff I have read does not allow for us to change aspect in the middle of a story…unless of course there is a purpose. The purpose here? The women is not Eve?
Can someone help me understand this better?!?!
Thanks for doing this research Dave. It does seem a bit over my head.
I think the question I was trying to formulate in #179 is this:
“One of the tricky things about this passage is that there are 2 women mentioned- Eve and the Ephesian woman. I wonder what your lecturer would think if Paul had given a different reason for the prohibition (just hypothetically). If the reason didn’t mention Eve or any other woman, then the only woman in the passage would be the “woman” of v11,12. Then “”the woman” of v14b,15 would have to refer to the specific Ephesian woman. I wonder if there is anything in the Greek that can’t refer to a specific Ephesian woman if Eve was not in the passage? For example, if Eve was not mentioned, would there be any problem with the singular “woman” of v11,12, the conjunction “gar’, the anaphoric reference, the perfect verb considering the verbal aspect theory, the “she” of v15, or anything else pointing to a specific Ephesian woman?”
Do you think this is a reasonable question to ask?
IMO that is a great question Craig
Mine too!
Thanks TL and Dave for your encouragement. I have passed on the question. I will let you know when I have a reply. I t might depend on when my friend has his next Greek lecture.
I hope things are okay Cheryl, I for one miss your posts and insightful analyses of St. Paul’s writings!
yes, where are you?? Hope things are OK.
Hi folks, sorry that I haven’t been around. I have been very remiss in providing an explanation to my “dead” blogging.
I am okay but I have been under an extreme amount of pressure so that there has been very little of me left to be a help. In July we started building a new ministry office and studio and although we were very busy, there were workers helping so I could take a few moments off here and there to blog. But several things happened that put us into a prolonged battle. The first was the theft of my husband’s laptop computer that held our ministry data files. That literally set us back three months worth of work and we have not yet caught up. Then the costs for the construction escalated to the point where what we had saved to finish the entire project to full occupancy was all used to construct the outside structure. There were cost over runs everywhere including having to pay for an engineer for several items. That meant that we had to let the crew go as we just didn’t have the money to keep paying them, while we have been working on finishing the outside ourselves. We are at the wiring stage right now and pushing hard to get the outside walls with completed wiring and plumbing so that we can get insulation in before the freezing weather comes. Right now there is no insulation between our bedroom and bathroom so it is a frigid dash in the morning. All of this has caused a great deal of stress and anxiety and long hours of physical work so that there has been almost nothing of me left by the end of the day.
On top of that our ministry partners have left for their retirement home at the coast so there is no one knowledgeable enough to provide help in the ministry work. We were not able to get our last ministry newsletter out because the printing equipment had been covered with building supplies until not that long ago and our data files for the newsletter had not yet been rebuilt and we were so tired from the long hours of work that we were not capable of keeping up.
We understand that our Lord is not a hard task master and that we are responsible for taking breaks and resting, but it has been difficult. This month I have to get the financial records finished for our Canadian ministry and file our taxes. The Christian brother who helps me with filing the taxes has left for three months so that is added stress for me.
I hated to create a note here on the blog saying that I might be gone for months because I love the discussions here and love the people and so I was procrastinating thinking that maybe things would get done faster and I would be freed up again. But it looks like the deadlines in November will keep me busy until the end of the month and maybe even longer and once the final crew comes to do the insulating and the final outside finishing work and the financial accounting is complete, then my days will be a little more flexible.
If you remember me, can you please pray that God will provide both ministry laborers and the finances to go forward in the ministry? The door has become open for us to minister and to expand but we need to have both volunteers to come into the office to help with the daily ministry duties (two of us is just not enough) and financial help to complete the inside of the office and the studio. We had hoped to fund all of this from our own savings but our funds have pretty much dried up as the project has cost almost double of what we had expected. In our next newsletter we will be putting out a fund raising call for anyone that the Lord prompts to help us to stand behind our ministry in prayer and with financial help. We are trusting that the Lord will speak to the hearts of those who have supported the ministry in the past. I know that many of them are not happy that they didn’t get their normal quarterly newsletter, so we are trusting that when they understand the struggles that we have been through, that they will come alongside us in support.
I will be back in action here as soon as I can. I think often about new things I want to write about but I just do not have the energy yet to keep up with the discussions and I haven’t even read most of them as my computer time is limited.
Even through all of this the Lord has been encouraging us and we are excited to find out how He will make all things work together for good. Today was one of the first times that we just set everything aside and took a break for a few hours. It was so wonderful! This evening I feel a peace and an encouragement and that brought me back to the blog.
If I don’t get back to post right away in December, I am certain I will be back by January. We will either have our prayers answered by then or else we will have frozen our butts off and decided to leave everything unfinished and gone somewhere warm! I am believing and trusting that God has all these things under control and at just the right time He will bring His supply to help two very tired servants. I believe we will be here and praising God for His goodness and His warmth.
Thanks for your care and for your prayers. I really, really miss you all.
Much love,
Cheryl
I should note that my anti-spam word for the last comment was pain. I very certain that God has a sense of humor and He has lots of ways to show us that we are still loved and cared for even when things are really hard.
Things haven’t been going great or smoothly for you Cheryl, but it is good to hear from you! 🙂 You’re in my thoughts and prayers 🙂
Thanks pinklight. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers. I believe that the prayers of God’s people have really been helping me. There is much more of a peace inside.
Cheryl, take as much time as you need to sort through business needs and take much needed rest. I think I can safely speak for all of us here in that we’re glad you’re safe and working through the usual ups and downs of fortune and day to day life. Bless providence that it’s not life threatening!
Hi everyone,
From a different blog I have been involved with recently, there was a question raised over the legitimacy of thinking that Paul had a particular Ephesian woman in mind, from the perspective of the Greek. I was wondering if anyone had any comments that could help to confirm or deny whether Cheryl’s exegesis is possible from the Greek or not. Thanks.
Are there Greek experts who:
1.Agree that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is referring to a particular woman,
2.Agree that grammatically it is possible, but don’t agree for other reasons,
3.Don’t believe it is grammatically possible.
These are 2 comments from the other blog and one question of mine which unfortunately hasn’t been answered yet.
Thanks.
Martin Shields
15/11/2010 08:15 AM
Craig, you said
“My understanding is that “woman” singular, without the article, in Greek can legitimately refer to either a particular woman (eg John 4:7) or to women generically.”
ISTM there’s some confusion over the presence/absence of the article in general. The absence of the article in John 4:7 is the normal way of indicating that the referent is not a particular, known woman. Once the initial reference is made, of course, subsequent references to the woman in John 4 include an anaphoric article to make it clear the author is referring to the same woman.
A nice example is 1Kings 19:9. While most English translations read “he went into a cave,” the Hebrew reads ????? (“the cave”) and the Greek preserves the article (?? ????????), but there’s been no previous reference to a cave in the passage. Given the parallels with Exodus, most scholars believe the article indicates that Elijah has travelled to the very cave that Moses had hidden in many years earlier. It was not simply any unknown although specific cave.
So what of 1Tim 2:12? If the woman was known to the audience but the author wished not to name her it would be normal to either use the article or else a demonstrative (“that woman” or the like) — “I do not permit that woman…” or the like. The absence of the article in 1Tim 2:12 on ???? strongly indicates that the woman is not a woman known to the audience. It is the normal way to refer to an undefined woman. Context then determines whether this is a reference to a particular unknown woman or any non-specific woman. I would think the simplest reading of the text is that the absence of the article indicates that Paul is referring to any undefined singular woman. Otherwise Paul seems to be saying “I do not permit a (particular) woman (but I’m not going to tell you who she is!)…”
Examples are numerous, so I’ll just list a few indefinite nouns which refer to any particular instance of the nominee: Matt 5:28 (“a woman”); 7:24 (“a wise man”), 26 (“a foolish man”); 10:21; 13:33; 18:2 (“a child”); and so on.
Martin Shields
15/11/2010 07:41 PM
Hi Dave,
You asked
“I would ask, Martin Shields, have you read the link I gave earlier regarding the anaphoric article and the precedence for how we are claiming the grammar in 1 Tim 2 to be working?”
Yes, I did have a look. I think it does raise questions about the text which need to be examined in more detail which is why I remain somewhat undecided over the interpretation of the passage. In short (if I understand it correctly) the claim is that references to “[a] woman” in verses 11–12 are cataphoric pointing forward to the woman mentioned in verses 14–15. At that point the identity of the woman is disambiguated (sufficiently for Timothy to understand who Paul is referring to) by the additional description that she was deceived (aorist) and became disobedient (perfect) and (presumably) will be kept safe through childbirth (v. 15) if she and her husband (the singular ‘man’ of v.13 and, together with the woman, subject of the plural ???????? in v.15) remain in faith etc. The woman in verse 14 isn’t Eve because of the perfect verb and the non-repetition of the name “Eve.”
It does offer a fairly neat explanation for the most difficult verse (i.e. v.15, which is a problem for most other explanations and cannot be overlooked given it is clearly linked to the remainder of the passage), but unfortunately there remain, as I insinuated, problems with this reading which prevent me from wholeheartedly accepting it. (1) Unlike Paul’s other instructions to Timothy, he here uses the expression ??? ???????? (“I do not permit”) — elsewhere he speaks imperatively (e.g. 1Tim 2:11; 4:7, 11, 12, etc.). There may be plausible reasons for this, although the expression is unparalleled in the NT. If Paul was giving Timothy instructions for dealing with a member of the congregation why not simply use the imperative as elsewhere?
(2) Were this Paul’s meaning, he could have been a little clearer (just to keep me happy, you understand). If he’d written something like ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? (“Let a certain woman learn in quietness and full submission…”) for verse 11 there would be no question that he was referring to a specific individual.
(3) The perfect verb in verse 14 could be related to the deictic centre established by the aorist so fitting with the identification of ? ???? as Eve, an identification reinforced by the association established between that woman and Adam by the repetition of “deceived.”
(4) Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for ???? in verses 11–12, I don’t think there’s as good a case for so reading ?????? (‘a man’) for which there’s little beyond the plural verb in verse 15 to clarify the referent (if the woman’s husband is here identified the text as it stands may be sufficient, although identification of her husband could be made clearer with the use of a possessive pronoun [cf. Matt 1:19; 10:12; Acts 5:10]).
I could probably go into greater detail with the pros and cons as I see them, but time is limited. If the Bible contained another affirmation of the restrictions on women claimed to be stated here I’d be far happier. As it stands there remain, as I mentioned (much!) earlier, too many questions for me to feel happy choosing one interpretation over the other.
Craig Swift
16/11/2010 09:29 PM
Hi Martin S,
You said,
Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for ???? in verses 11–12, I don’t think there’s as good a case for so reading ?????? (‘a man’) for which there’s little beyond the plural verb in verse 15 to clarify the referent (if the woman’s husband is here identified the text as it stands may be sufficient, although identification of her husband could be made clearer with the use of a possessive pronoun [cf. Matt 1:19; 10:12; Acts 5:10]).
If you are still out there Martin, a question if you wouldn’t mind.? If Paul and Timothy were both very much aware of the problem here, so that Timothy knew exactly who Paul was referring to through the anaphoric reference to the woman, wouldn’t Timothy also then know exactly who the man is without any further clarification? Remember, this is first of all a personal letter from Paul to Timothy.? Thanks.
Cheryl, if and when you have time I have 2 questions that crossed my mind yesterday in the evening that I’m hoping you can help me with.
Adam had knowledge that protected him from the serpent’s deception. The serpent’s deception was that 1) he (and her) would become like God knowing good and evil (which was a lie because God doesn’t know evil). So my question is how did Adam learn or gain knowledge that God doesn’t ‘know’ evil through observing God as Creator? And another question I have is how was Adam protected from the serpent’s other lie which was that they would not die, from learning about God as creator? I feel like I’m missing something? It is obvious that Adam had to of learned more about God than Eve did since God created things in Adam’s presence, but I feel lost in the details? Have I forgotten something that you’ve said somewhere in another post?
In addition to #195 I have to add that it appears at least some of the answer lies in Gen 3:1:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.
Adam not only was present when the serpent was created but he also named it “serpent”. (And he knew that the serpent was twisting the command that God told him but not the woman)
Hi pinklight,
I am not sure if Adam knew about the serpent’s nature after naming the animals or not. He certainly knew how much God loved him, cared for him and would not withhold anything good from him. If he knew the nature of both, then he would not even need to understand about the details of what the serpent was offering to not be deceived by him.
If you know someone is a con man, and he tries to tell you to disobey someone who has proved he can be trusted, you are not deceived by whatever he says.
Now if Adam didn’t know about the serpent, and needed to discern all the details……I’ll leave that to others more capable 🙂
Just another comment from a friend on the Greek issue I raised @194.
“I’ve spent this afternoon nutting through the Greek and I don’t think your reading is possible (or at least it is highly improbable). There are several points that I would make, but the key point comes back to the lack of the definite article in verse 11. John 4:7 doesn’t provide the precedent you suggested to me as at that point she is an indefinite person. Notice that as soon as she is introduced and John wants us to understand that she is ‘that’ woman he uses the article. Here there is no introduction to ‘that’ woman (anywhere in 1 Tim 1-2) and that would demand the use of the article or some adjectival descriptor.”
This seems to be a common problem that comes up when discussing Cheryl’s view of 1 Tim 2:11-15.
I noticed that Martin Shields @195 did at least say
“(4) Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for ???? in verses 11–12…”
so he thought it was possible that the woman could be a particular individual.
Any thoughts?
IMO we must give Paul the option to NOT name or describe a particular woman that he wants to exercise grace toward. It seems likely that Paul expected his letter to Timothy to be read aloud. This was good in that it showed exactly what Paul wanted done. It could have been bad for the woman had she been named. Thus the only other choice was to describe loosely someone that Timothy and those involved would know exactly who was being described, but loosely enough that no one else would know. If she were described too accurately then she would carry a stigma around with her that she didn’t deserve. Unlike Hymenaeus and Alexander who were apparently unteachable, this woman was able to learn in Paul’s estimation.
Thanks TL for those helpful thoughts.
I also noticed that Martin Shields seemed to change a bit from his 8:15 am comment to his 7:41pm comment after reading Cheryl’s article on the anaphoric reference.
He changed from saying things like
“strongly indicates that the woman is not a woman known to the audience. ” to saying
“ Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for ???? in verses 11–12…”
So I have given Cheryl’s article to my friend @198 to see how that goes with him.
Hi, Cheryl. It’s been a while since I last visited your site. Sorry to learn about your trials and tribulations with the robbery and the various changes occurring in connection with your ministry. I will remember you in my prayers.
Quite a lively discussion on 1 Tim. 2:15! And there is not much I would add. Just these brief comments and observations:
1. I forget where he made the comment, but Mark said something about Paul being the only one in the NT who taught the doctrine of justification. It would be more correct to say he more fully developed this doctrine; for Jesus, in seminal form, taught it in Luke 18:9-14. However, I agree with Ralph Martin and N.T. Wright that the heart of Paul’s theology and gospel preaching is the concept of “reconciliation”–“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19)–a vast and cosmic redemption by Christ, of which justification is one small, though important element. So I do not agree with those who reduce the heart of the Gospel to justification alone. There is much more to the Gospel than that.
2. As for Mark’s concerns regarding the Greek word “zozo,” it must be admitted that it has a rather large semantic range in meaning, which is determined by its context. The core meaning of the word, according to The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, is “rescue from some life threatening danger” (p.540). So in some contexts it refers only to deliverance from some physical threat to God’s servants (e.g., Acts 27:20, 31), or from the danger and suffering Jesus predicted that would occur during the future tribulation (e.g., Mt. 24:13, 22). But in other contexts, it refers to God’s action in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin, death and Satan, “which drain life on earth of it joy and threaten each person with eternal loss” (EDBW, p. 541) Therefore, both grammar and context must be adequately addressed by an interpretation if it is to be considered a valid and satisfactory explanation of this text. Now, it might be true that Cheryl’s interpretation is flawless; but it has a far better fit than what is proposed by Mark.
3. Regarding Mark’s comments on biblical hermeneutics, I would again point out that not only do the majority of biblical interpreters agree that all doctrine must be understood and applied in the light of what the Bible, as a whole, teaches on these issues, but the clearer portions of Scripture are to be given greater weight than those that are less clear. Consequently, it is clear from the rest of the NT that Paul was an advocate of women, honoring them as co-workers in evangelism, discipleship and church planting, such as Junia the Apostle in Rom 16:7, and in Phil. 4:2-3, Euodia and Syntche; that he not only encouraged men and women to pray and prophesy together in congregational worship (1 Cor 11-14), but himself also listened to the proclamation of God’s word by Philip’s daughters who were prophets and carried on a continuing prophetic ministry (Acts 21:7-9)–this all ought make us aware that 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which Mark essentially admits is obscure and difficult, is exceptional and circumstantial in nature, and should not be allowed to negate the signficance of Paul’s overall teaching and practice that our role in ministry and leadership is determined on the basis of our maturity, gifting and calling–not on the basis of our race, nationality or gender.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It does seem like Adam may have known about the serpent’s nature before it went after Eve and he could no doubt tell it’s deceiving nature when it did attack Eve because of the way it handled God’s command. And yes, he knew how much God loved him. God gave him all the good things that he needed. He lacked nothing.
Craig, let us know how it goes with your friend. I’d be interested. Praying for him to come to a better view of women as equal members of the Body of Christ who God is equally able to use any way He desires.
Craig@200,
Have you taken your discussion private or abandoned it?
Hi Kay,
I have several comps I am having ongoing discussions with. The one I mentioned in #200 is one of the full time staff at my church. He has said he would like to have coffee with my wife and I about it because he prefers face to face rather than emails.
But he has now said how busy he is for a while with too many meetings to attend and not enough time.
Another staff member has basically said the same thing- preaches compism from the pulpit, would love to discuss my questions, but not enough time.
Another friend said he wanted to discuss the issue, but after several months of no reply, he was the one who told me about the Sola Panel blog and has been reading, but not participating in the discussion.
The Sola Panel blog has not gone private if that is what you are referring to. I think the problem is that we reached 500 comments and overloaded the system again. I noticed comment 501 didn’t appear so I am waiting….. before I make another comment. I have sent an email to notify them of the problem.
If the Kay, Kristen, Teri, Sue, Dave (and others?) on that blog are also regular contributors here, I wouldn’t mind having a bit of a discussion here on how you thought everything went over there eg lessons we can learn, questions we need to further investigate etc
Another possibility would be if Jereth would like to move over here if he wants to continue. Cheryl always seems to welcome comps.
It would be great to have Jereth come over here and dialogue. 🙂
I agree. Have Jereth come over here if he would like to continue the discussion. Because of the volume of comments I have trouble with the page over there.
“But he has now said how busy he is for a while with too many meetings to attend and not enough time.
Another staff member has basically said the same thing- preaches compism from the pulpit, would love to discuss my questions, but not enough time.”
Craig,
I’ve noticed another common trait of comps – they always seem to be too busy to discuss this particular issue. Rather odd since it is so central in their beliefs. They apparently have time to do or discuss everything else except it.
My guess is that Cheryl would be pleased for Jareth to continue discussing this issue here. She welcomes respectful dialog here and the only time I’ve known her to close comments was when one became so large it would no longer open properly. Then she started a new post to continue the discussion. 🙂
Hi Everyone,
If there is nothing more from the Sola Panel by tonight, I will write another comment asking Jereth if he would like to continue here. Hopefully he will get it through the feed.
I’ve been enjoying the discussion on solapanel at:
http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/
and am commenting here to continue reading as it develops [assuming it continues].
😎
God bless.
Hi David and others,
Sola Panel is working again. Jereth has not yet appeared to let us know what he would like to do.
May I suggest we continue at Sola Panel until we find out Jereth’s preference. A Sola Panel discussion apparently has to stop after one month, which is on 10th Dec (or end of the 9th?).
Hi David and welcome to my blog!
Hi Everyone, I just finished getting my year end accounting and corporate taxes done so I will likely be back on my blog on and off this week. Time for bed now, but I look forward to having a little time again now that my biggest and most important task has been accomplished.
I should also add that I sincerely welcome complementarians to my blog who are interested in respectful dialog. We can be very passionate here, but we do appreciate our brothers and sisters in Christ who do not believe as we do about women in ministry. I would welcome any discussion/debate that Craig would like to bring here with any comps that would follow him. Christian brothers and sisters are all valued here.
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like Jereth is really interested in continuing the discussion. At one stage he said he was finding the discussion fruitful – this seems to have changed.
He is definite about it not being here on Cheryl’s blog, because he wants to be on “neutral territory”.
Does anyone know much about the Christian Forums Jereth mentioned? I’m praying about whether to just let it drop- that seems to be what he would prefer- or take him up on the offer and we could continue at Christian Forums.
Any thoughts?
Craig@214,
Clearly, he is feeling intimidated. It appears that he is not sure enough of his position to venture far from home with it. Looks like it’s up to you to find agreeable “territory” – Christian Forums sounds like it may be a reasonable compromise if you wish to continue.
My thought is that he wants a forum where there are lots of other comps who can also chime in and help him. Here he thinks he might be on his own without help so he is uncomfortable with that. So perhaps respect is not as important to him as the comfort of having like minded men as a safety zone.
There are some forums that are known for their hatred and bad treatment of those who have opposing views. I am not aware that the particular forum he has suggested is one of those bad ones so it may be a good place for him to feel comfortable. It may also be a good place to get the message out. It is up to you. I can help as I have time but I am unlikely to have a lot of time available until January.
Cheryl, don’t mean to hijack the thread…..but
I’m putting out a desperate plea to the internet world of Christians. We are desperate at our forums for tech help. I’m a retired slightly disabled senior who is completely non techie. I even have to get people to hook up stereo stuff and don’t use half the buttons cause I’m not sure what they do.
If anyone knows of someone who would be willing, able and is trustworthy, to work on our forums, please either let Cheryl know and she’ll contact me or join the forums and contact me there.
We’ve put out a plea in the past and everyone seemed to think I could figure it out. I’m telling you plainly I cannot figure this stuff out. Boohoo 🙁
No problem TL for placing your request here. I wish I had tentacles of knowledge and loads of time and I would help you myself. I pray for help for you. Technology can be very helpful but also very intimidating.
Thanks Cheryl. Not just for me but for all the many people who visit our forums. 🙂
Just a note to my blog followers: I thought I would be able to get back to blogging by this time, but I understand that I really need a break and so I am going to take time away until the new year when I am trusting that I will be able to be back and fresh after taking time to rest during the Christmas season.
We continue to pray for you Cheryl, that God’s refreshing and strengthening grace will be with you at this time.
prayers that you will return fully refreshed and full of God’s insight. As well I hope that your home and office is near done. That took a lot of energy to put together.
blessings in Christ…..
Hi everyone,
As has been mentioned above, there has been a discussion at http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/ over the last month on 1 Tim 2:11-15 and related subjects. That discussion closed today so I am continuing here.
I was asking why egals are concerned to emphasize that 1 Tim 2:12 is not a universal command if there are good grounds for believing that “authentien” is always a bad thing to do.
From your reply Kristen, I think some of the reason why I am not following you completely may be that my definition of universal command may be wrong.
I have thought of a universal command as one that is addressed to a particular group because they need to know it and suits their situation, but it could also be applied universally because it is also true universally.
So “love one another” in Jn 13:34 is addressed to a specific group of people applying to their specific situation, but I also understand it to be a universal command.
However, “wash one another’s feet” Jn 13:14 is also addressed to a specific group of people applying to their specific situation, but I believe that it is is not a universal command. I make these inferences because of the teaching of the rest of the bible and some knowledge of culture and some hopefully sanctified common sense.
If Paul addressed a mixed group, and in that group the men were prone to anger during prayer, he would say that men should pray without anger 1 Tim2:8. I would understand this as both a specific command to a particular group, but I have also understood this to be a universal command because from the rest of the bible it would seem that it is always wrong for men to pray with anger. So this same command could be given at other times and places in the same way and still be God’s will.
I don’t see why, with this understanding of universal command, that a universal command necessarily implies anything at all about the things you and Jereth see. For example, you said
“If we decide that Paul’s words about men praying “without anger or disputing” are universal, then it is logical to infer (thanks, David!) that there is a reason why men need this command to be given specifically to them; i.e., that men, more than women, have throughout history and culture, more tendency to be involved in anger and disputing than women.”
I don’t see this as logical at all, and so this is why I think you must understand “universal command” differently. Do you understand “universal command” as God giving a general list of commands for all time to the whole human race, saying “this is what I want you all to do.” There is no reference at all to any specific situation at all. If that is the case, then I think I can better understand what you are saying.
So what I meant was that I see the commands of v8-12 operating the same way as each other.
All of them are given to a particular gender because this is the gender that was having the particular problem at the time.
None of them imply that the other gender may not have problems with these at some other time or that one gender is more prone to it than the other.
None of them imply that it is ok for the other gender to ever do the thing prohibited in the command.
All of them could still be given at other times and places and be true (eg it is still correct for men to pray without anger today and women to dress appropriately) This is what I meant by universal command but may have a wrong definition.
Any comments? Am I totally confused? Thanks.
Hi David,
This morning on the Sola Panel blog you said regarding 1 Tim 2:8-12
I agree. I think this is a similar point to what I was trying to get across to a comp friend of mine in an email I sent a few days ago.
I said
“V8 opposes anger in prayer by men. He does not say it is ok for women to do this.
V9,10 opposes inappropriate dress by women. He does not say it is ok for men to do this.
V11,12 opposes teaching or “aunthentien”ing. Can you be sure he is saying it is ok for men to do this?”
Hi Kristen,
Just thinking aloud, about the universal command thingy.
You said today on the Sola Panel blog
You also said
Maybe the word “meant” is key to my problem in following you? You are saying that there are only two alternatives. Paul either “meant” to be time/place specific or “meant” to be universal. You are arguing that he “meant” to be time/place specific in v8-12. I agree with you on this.
Possibly my problem was that I was looking at a third alternative. Paul meant his words to be time/place specific, but they are actually applicable universally. So the men in the church at Ephesus had a particular problem with anger during prayer, and Paul was addressing this, but it is always applicable that men should pray without anger. I was including this third alternative as universal where as I think you would see it as still time/place specific.
Am I making sense?
I never was much good at English at school. Maybe I need to do that University English study that you and David have done 🙂 .
A little confusing. Anything that replicates a specific situation can read into the same admonition to correct it. But we cannot thus change the admonition to be universal. The admonition was event and possibly person specific. If some other person did the same things (which unfortunately we don’t know the exact and full mistakes) then it would seem reasonable that Paul’s suggestion that this woman(women) learn and stop teaching with authentein would apply. But there are other alternatives as well. There is not only one way to handle individuals female or male when they dominate others in their teaching. We see that in chapter one. Certain men were turned over to Satan to learn.
This was a personal letter. Yes we can learn a great deal from it. Christians really need to get off the legalistic bandwagon. We cannot make everything into a law. There are many ways to handle a situation of offense. Paul gave some examples. But there are other examples. Jesus mentioned some. The OT mentioned some.
Craig, I agree that these commands are universal in the sense that you mean it. But what Paul was saying was directed to one gender and not the other. It is because of this that we must consider his words time/place specific.
Paul could have stated these ideas as universal rules, but the way to do that would have been to say, “Everyone must pray without anger or disputing. Everyone must dress modestly. And no one may teach in such a way as to authentein.”
It is because he APPLIED the universal rules to a specific group (either males or females) that we have to view his intentions as time-place specific. Otherwise, in reading his statements as universal rules WITHOUT a sense of specific application, we would have to infer that only men, universally, need to hear the first rule and only women, universally, need to hear the second and third.
Does that help?
In other words, if you make a universal rule, it applies to all people. If you make a universal rule and state it in terms of a specific group of people, then it applies universally, but only to all the people in that group. Paul could not have meant that it was ok for women to pray with anger and disputing. Nor do we think he meant that only men have a problem with anger and disputing, and therefore women don’t need the rule.
Therefore, since he limits his words to men, he was not making a universal rule. He was only applying a universal rule to a specific group in a specific situation.
Thanks TL and Kristen. What you are saying is helping and making sense. I think I am understanding much better what you are saying now.
A related question I think if anyone has the time.
One of the staff at my church said egals use a “different hermeneutic”. I have often heard comps say it is a “liberal hermeneutic”. I don’t really understand what they mean, what is “liberal” about it, and why they say this. It doesn’t seem “liberal” at all to me.
Thanks.
As far as I know, Craig, saying egals are liberal or have a liberal approach to interpretation is just a strawman. It’s not accurate or real. It’s just something to paint egals in a bad light so that others will be hesitant to listen to what Christian egals have to say. Its a tad bit of fear mongering.
Hi, all, I trust you’re well…
Craig, might I offer a few thoughts? Of course, take or leave them as you wish.
Can I suggest that this is perhaps a little imprecise? ‘Paul meant his words to be time/place specific, but they are actually applicable universally’.
(I think here might lie the key to what is confusing regarding universal commands etc..)
These reflections might be helpful. If for instance we have a family rule that is made for our children, ‘Do not steal biscuits’, then even though other families might forbid the theft of biscuits too, strictly speaking our family’s rule is not in itself applicable universally. For the implicit meaning of the rule (taking into account its context) is, ‘No child in this particular family—ie the Adams family—may steal biscuits’. It is reasonably clear, I think, that a rule whose implicit meaning is this sort of thing can’t itself have universal application.
Strictly, rules of this kind, narrow rules set in a particular concrete situation for a particular group of people, can’t themselves be applied universally. Providing the context in which they are set is given due place when thinking about them, in themselves such rules as these apply only in that context.
What we can do with this sort of rule, however, is to try to see by combining a number of them with each other whether we are justified in inferring a universal rule that is similar. Or we might be able to combine them with other broad principles, and see what happens.
I’ve been wondering perhaps whether the confusion you feel isn’t partly to do with having the idea that Paul’s language in Timothy might be narrow, and yet nevertheless susceptible to universal application.
I think a more accurate distinction for interpreting any of the Bible’s narrow rules is attained when we consider the rule on the one hand in its actual condition (which is narrow), and on the other hand as the expression of some wider rule. So for example ‘Do not sow your field with mixed seed’ is the Bible’s explicit rule—but perhaps it is the expression of a wider rule like, ‘Use resources wisely’ (seeing that carelessly mixing seeds during planting is an inefficient way to farm). Even if it is not an expression of that broad rule, it most probably is the expression of some broad rule.
In other words (i) the Bible’s narrow rules are expressions of broader ones; (ii) the broader ones might be discovered by combining as much information as possible on the subject, to see how far it gets us; and (iii) the broader rules are the ones with the wide application.
Another way of expressing the same idea is to say that Paul’s language in a narrow rule is not applicable universally, but rather constitutes the application by him of a broad rule to a particular situation.
Peace be on the heads of all…!
Thanks TL.
I notice that Sola Panel is continuing with new threads on the comp/egal issue and Kristen has commented on the issue I just raised @230. The link is http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_7/#6661 for anyone who is interested.
Thanks Kristen.
Thanks David again for taking the time and trouble to help to clarify things for me. #232 all sounds very sensible and along with Kristen and TL’s comments is helping to sharpen my thinking and resolve the point of confusion. Thanks everyone.
#230 Craig,
You said:
Many people using “thought stopping” words that are designed to paint certain people as bad. This technique is used to stop others from considering the opposing argument instead of using the Biblical way of refuting bad arguments with gentleness and respect for the brother or sister we disagree with.
Recently I listened to a program where the Christian host used sarcasm, loaded language and misrepresentation to make another brother in Christ appear in a very bad light to the host’s audience. The issue had nothing to do with women in ministry at all and I did not bring it up. I emailed the host and with gentleness and respect, I reminded the host that we are commanded to love our brothers in Christ. If we have a disagreement with them we are to bring out the truth and refute error, but we are to do it with gentleness and respect. My advice was not accepted and I became the next one to be misrepresented. In a subsequent radio interview on someone’s else’s show, the first host related the email that was sent to him and he said it was from an “egalitarian” woman who said he was “mean and nasty”. What was the purpose of calling me an “egalitarian”? I had not mentioned it and the only way he could know it would be to google my name. The issue of egalitarianism was not the issue where we disagreed, but it was a “tool” to disregard me. It was an easy way for him to set aside my advice to him and cause people to see me as being the bad person. Then he misrepresented me as writing things I never wrote. What I did tell him was that mockery of a Christian brother was not the way of the Master. I did not all him names, nor attack his character. I reminded him of the goal that he had set up for his program concerning gentleness and reverence. Those who want to follow Jesus are commanded to love their brothers and to treat them as dearly loved brothers who belong to the same Lord and Master. It is my opinion that if you have to misrepresent your opposition and you fail to care about genuine brothers or sisters in Christ, then you have already lost the argument.
Many here may remember a complementarian accusing me of paying too much attention to the words and grammar of the Scripture. Those who pay attention to the inspired text, the inspired grammar and the inspired context are not liberals who place their own tradition as having more value than what God has said. The egalitarians here have shown that they are very interested in what God has to say and they want to know what the original languages mean so that they can truly understand God. Those who would call us “liberals” may be guilty of trying to win an argument by name calling rather than by rolling up their sleeves to get deep into the text with us.
The older I get, the more I realize that there are many who do not love truth more than they love their own position. When they find they cannot answer arguments or questions, they do not consider why. They just do the only thing they believe they can in the situation and that is to call names, question motives, attack the character of the opposition and run away. What does a person do about people who have dug their heels in and become abusive? Even a couple of years ago I used to think that if I was persistent, they were bound to see their error and consider what I have to say about the inspired text. But now I realize that it is an act of grace to let them leave. I realize that God doesn’t expect that I have the power to persuade everyone. What I can do is be faithful, be truthful and be gracious while speaking the truth with love. And maybe just maybe if I do not treat the opposition with unkindness and disrespect they may in their private times alone with their thoughts consider the seed that has been planted and God may cause that seed to grow at some point.
I now realize that it is okay for me to fail. I will continue to learn and grow and to become even more confident in the Scriptures as I treat the Word with respect as I hang on to each and every word that God has breathed out. In the end my success is not how many people are convinced that I understand the truth about a difficult passage. My success will come in standing before God and having Him say that I have been faithful in the handling of His word.
Craig, you really opened a can of worms inside my head with your question. I just had to come out of my sabbatical to give this “rant” about the importance of gentleness and respect rather than name calling. After all, one day we will surely find an area where we have not understood correctly and we will be greatly blessed by having our understanding challenged by a brother or sister in Christ who is able to speak truth to us in gentleness and respect so that we can hear and have a safe place to change our minds.
I really love you guys and miss you a lot. I just need this extra time away for some very needed rest. 🙂
Hi Cheryl,
I am thankful to God and to those who “live” here, that your blog has been just such a place.
I think I’ve finally worked out you do those cool quotation marks 🙂 .
Hi Kristen,
On the Sola Panel #6649 you said regarding 1 Tim 2:12
I was wondering how this view of authentien relates to how the rest of the bible doesn’t seem to speak much about authority of teachers. Cheryl and some others on this blog (if I have understood them correctly) would doubt that teachers in the church have authority over others. So if they are correct, that would mean there is no authority to be usurped. Perhaps the alternate meaning of domineer or dominate would avoid this problem? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Craig, I am not saying so much that teachers have authority as teachers, as that they have been given authority (authorized) to teach— in other words, that they have a recognized calling and ministry, borne witness to by the saints and approved by Paul or other existing church leaders. I know that 1 Cor. 14:26 says that whenever the church comes together, “each of you” can have “a teaching,” but Eph. 4:11 says that “teacher” is one of the gifts that only “some” are given. I think there is a difference between “having a teaching” and being a “teacher,” and I think it is possible to usurp the place of a teacher by acting as if you have been authorized when you have not.
I do think “domineer” is another acceptable reading here– but really, the two are sort of synonymous in my mind. To seize something you are not authorized/recognized as having the congregation’s consent to have, is also to domineer, to throw your weight around, to force your own way.
But this is not the same thing as saying teachers have “authority” over the congregation. I hope that makes sense.
PS. 1 Tim 1:6-7 seems to bear out the above idea:
“. . . some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.” (emphasis added)
It could very well be the “a woman” of 1 Tim 2:11 who desires to be a teacher while still not understanding what she’s talking about; and it could be that in her desire to be a teacher, she is usurping authority (the authorization) to teach.
Thanks Kristen.
I agree that only some have a gift of teaching, yet all may teach.
Just as only some have a gift of mercy, yet all may show mercy.
I had not thought of “teaching of the law” in 1 Tim 1:6,7 as something that they were seeking to be authorized into, but rather just an activity they wanted to do.
What sort of things might the person “authorized” to teach be able to do that would distinguish them from those that were not “authorized”? Are you thinking of some sort of office or position like elder, or home church leader?
Part of what English speakers consider an office of ministry is the recognition of calling and skill. Being recognized as having a true calling encourages people to look to you for direction, giving you more opportunity to teach. It also encourages people to ask you to teach in various settings.
That is really the only part of considering a ministry an office and having an authority to teach that is viable or acceptable IMO.
Craig, I see being “authorized” or “recognized” as conveying a level of trust placed in them by the hearers. We have all heard it said that Prof. So-and-So is “an authority” on such-and-such a subject. This means that when the Prof. speaks, people trust what he’s teaching– they consider what he’s saying to have more weight than if I myself just stood up and started pontificating on the subject. They are more likely to believe the Prof. than they would me.
I picture what might have been going on in Ephesus as this: because of the lack of education of the women in the church at the time Paul was writing to Timothy, there were no women recognized as being “authoritative” (as the Prof in the example above is “authoritative”) on the subject of Christian doctrine. But a certain woman or women were setting themselves up as “authoritative” anyway, and were holding meetings in which they contradicted what the established, trusted teachers (who happened to be all male in Ephesus) were teaching. Paul wanted this to be stopped. He wanted the woman or women to sit down and listen and be teachable. Only then could they ever attain what they were seeking, which was to be considered “authorities” on the subjects they wanted to teach about.
Thanks Kristen and TL. I think I’m following much better what you are saying and its giving me good food for thought to throw into the mix of reasonable possibilities. Thanks.
There are always “possibilities” of what is meant by the text. But “possibilities” usually have holes that keep them from being understood as the real meaning. Here is where I see the holes. If Paul left Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the teaching that was going on, we might find an addition something like this:
If teaching in an “authoritative” way was wrong if you aren’t an expert on something, then why were these “women” only restricted from teaching men this way? Why not also stop them from teaching women authoritatively?
Secondly, it appears that Paul’s concern was not “authority” but false teaching. In verses 4 & 6 Paul specifically mentions myths and endless genealogies which give rise to speculation and empty discussion.
In these verses Paul did not state that myths and endless genealogies give rise to unauthorized authority. He could have added that if it was a key issue.
In verse 7 of chapter 1 Paul specifically makes a point of the Law that some wanted to teach.
Note here too, Paul didn’t say that these ones wanted to be teachers with authority. And he doesn’t deny that some may be teachers. He only mentions that these ones are confidently teaching errors because they do not understand the purpose of the law.
The lawful use of the law was to bring knowledge of sin, not to bring perfection.
It appears clear to me that Paul’s concern was not an an “authority” that a person had, but the rightful use of the law as a tool to bring a person to Christ rather than to bring a person under bondage. Those who were to be stopped from teaching were bringing people into confusion. Are we to see Paul as stopping godly people from teaching true doctrine just because they did not yet have an acceptance from the church to teach? I can’t reason my way through that because Paul had in another place said that he was glad that he gospel was being preached even though the motives of preaching the gospel was to harm him. The preaching/teaching of the truth was never stopped no matter who taught the truth. Paul never ordered a man to be stopped from preaching the truth even if their motive was to hurt him. Certainly such a one would have no “authority” or trust in the congregation, but they were allowed to proclaim the gospel. So, was Paul really concerned about an “authority” that women had not yet earned? Or was he only concerned about false doctrine?
More in a bit….
In reading through the passage I find some things of interest.
1. Paul never addressed “authority” in chapter 1. He did address false doctrine and the wrongful use of the law that would hinder people from coming to Christ as the one who fulfilled the law, and using the law this way would bring people back under bondage to the written letter of the law that they could never fulfill on their own.
2. Paul never stopped anyone from preaching the truth of the gospel, nor did he state that he left Timothy behind to stop women from teaching the truth of the gospel to anyone. It would seem rather odd to have a universal statement about the silencing of godly women who were teaching the truth when it was never mentioned in the purpose of Timothy’s reason for being left behind in Ephesus.
3. The view that it was an authoritative teaching that was forbidden seems to defy the grammar. In 1 Timothy 2:12 there are two verbs that are joined together by a conjunction. What is the grammar source that makes the one verb as a modifier of the other?
We have the same grammar in Rev. 2:20 –
Here we have two verbs that are joined together with a conjunction. The term for “lead astray” means to deceive. She is both teaching error and deliberately deceiving. The term for “teach” here is normally used positively, but the term “lead astray” or “deceive” is a negative term so both terms become negative. She is faulted not only for teaching error, but for deliberately deceiving and bringing God’s servants into her acts of sin.
I think there is a better way to see 1 Timothy 2:12 that will not add in an idea about authority. If Paul had meant to talk about earned authority or respect of the congregation, there were perfectly good words to convey that idea. Instead Paul used a word that is so extremely rare that it is difficult to pinpoint the exact meaning, except for the fact that it is never a term that is given to anyone in the Bible as an “earned right” or “privilege”. It is always used as a negative term outside of the Scripture. And because Paul’s main points include false doctrine and deception in chapters 1 & 4 which surround the disputed text, we can be confident that Paul was not restricting the teaching of correct doctrine. Also because Paul never discusses in this book an accepted human “authority” that would be needed before one can use their gift of teaching , we should be leery of reading that into 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul clearly said what he meant in the chapter before. Why would he make general statements about women and authority when there was no authorization mentioned for Timothy to do something about women or their authority? Was Timothy left behind to stop women from teaching? Or how about Timothy left behind to stop women from teaching until they had the proper authority to teach? Paul never gives a hint that this was on Timothy’s agenda.
But does Paul mention the need to stop certain people from teaching false doctrine? Certainly. Would the stopping of “a woman” from teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 fit into the known reason for why Timothy was left behind? It sure would. And the fact that the “student” held a marital responsibility to protect but was doing nothing would have required special attention from Timothy to this one teacher who also needed to be stopped. Timothy was only left behind to stop the teaching of error and to protect people from false doctrine. No other agenda is there other than this very clear confirmation of Paul’s.
The question I have asked myself, is whether it is more reasonable to understand that in a private letter from Paul to his representative in Ephesus, that the stated purpose for Timothy’s stay in Ephesus was to be accomplished in chapter 2 or that a completely different purpose for stopping teaching was interjected into chapter 2 without so much as an inclusion in the summary of chapter 1 or hinted at by any other Scripture or any other inspired writer? I think that logically we can only go by the facts we already have that the problem of teaching in Ephesus was not about men vs women or about needing human authority to use one’s gift of teaching, but about the problem of the teaching of error and the deception which was causing speculation, fruitless discussion and causing people to stray away from the faith.
If the “holes” that I have found are not “holes” and can be acceptably explained, then I would remove my objections. I do not think I am wrong, but I am always willing to view evidence to the contrary. God’s truth is way more important than human ego to me. It is like a pearl of great price that we need to sell all to obtain.
Back to my sabbatical. I really do need to relax my mind. It goes a million miles a minute when I discuss God’s Word. It is truly hard to keep quiet 😉
I was so glad to have you back and read your comments! You’re very thorough. Now your leaving again? 🙁 Don’t keep quite! ;P
Hi Cheryl,
I understood TL and Kristen to be agreeing with you that the teaching was false teaching.
Kristen said,
Two tricky bits are:
1.The exact meaning of “authentein”.
As you said “Paul used a word that is so extremely rare that it is difficult to pinpoint the exact meaning”. Is it
“usurp the authority of an accepted/authorized teacher before you yourself have been authorized”
as Kristen has put forward or to “dominate” as I think you believe.
I think your question
is a good one. I wonder what Kristen and TL would say?
2.Is it a certain particular woman or more than one doing this dominating false teaching? Your view that it is one woman makes a lot of sense of the whole passage, and is very appealing, but it is not easily accepted by others.
In our recent discussions on the Sola Panel some questions were raised about it eg
a)Is it really a natural way for Paul to have spoken, without clarifying a little?
b)Are there Greek experts and other prominent egals who have adopted this view?
When you have more time Cheryl, (I noticed that your last comments were at 2am and 3am!!) I would really appreciate any more thoughts you have on these issues.
Thanks.
Craig,
You said:
I don’t see any evidence that there was an “authority” given to “accepted teachers” let alone an authority that could be “usurped”. Since the leaders were to be servants and not lording over the flock, is it their authority to act as a servant that is being “usurped”? It just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think that “dominate” exactly fits the meaning either. Authentein appears to have more of a sinister meaning than dominate. I also think that not knowing exactly what the word means is NOT a hindrance to understanding the passage. We can know that the activity is never sanctioned for any Christian brother or sister and that the situation was so serious that Paul drew a link to the very first situation involving deception. I also believe that term authentein is used of an action that is being done by the woman in ignorance not in a deliberate attempt to dominate or tear down the man and destroy him for her pleasure. The fact that Paul is so convinced that her receiving correct teaching will bring her out of her error and to salvation, convinces me that what she is doing is being done in ignorance of the harm that she has connected herself to. The act of domination doesn’t lend itself as much to innocence, but a bad character and perhaps selfishness in sacrificing someone else on purpose. I believe she was deceived. I do not believe that she was a deliberate deceiver nor that she was one who was trying to harm the man on purpose. Paul’s words about who would receive mercy as he did just seem so applicable to her situation.
I believe that if there was a group of women doing false teaching and dominating men, that Paul would have used correct grammar to describe them. The fact that he used the singular and then the plural fits a man and a woman but it doesn’t fit a group of women who would never be called both “she” and “them”. In my desire to be faithful to the text, I am very unconvinced about any argument that would excuse Paul’s writing as bad grammar. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit so the buck stops with Him. He doesn’t make mistakes.
It is very natural for Paul. Paul spoke about himself calling himself “a man” when he was not wanting to boast about his spiritual experiences and he also used non specific terms when he spoke about a specific man committing a sin that would eventually find him back in the fold after being disciplined by the church. In both cases Paul had a reason for not being specific and these two other examples show Paul willing to hide the identity of the person for specific reasons. If the Holy Spirit hid names and specific information about these two other instances of real people who are not directly identified, then there is no reason why 1 Timothy 2:12 is not along a similar line. In fact 1 Timothy 2:12 is more understandable with non specific information since it was a personal letter to Timothy who would have known all of the details that we do not know. He didn’t need to know a name. In the other cases where Paul did not reveal names, the letter was written to a much wider audience.
As far as not being accepted easily, that isn’t quite true. I won’t ever forget the very first pastor who watched my DVD set with an open mind even though he was thoroughly convinced that women were not allowed to participate in the privileges that were given by God to men alone. He wrote me that the Holy Spirit convicted him so much so that he repented of his view of women. He was deeply repentant and he confessed his sin. Others has come along the same course but with more skepticism at first and they pursued me with questions. There is a huge set of traditions that we have accepted for so long that these traditions will not easily fall. I myself had to let these traditions go, but I have chosen to only allow accepted traditions to fall because of (not in spite of) the inspired text and grammar. I also am unconvinced by emotionalism or speculation outside the text. This is the reason why I reject some of the things that egalitarians teach. I don’t want speculation but only the truth of God’s Word. It is my desire to help many others to share my strong trust in the Scriptures so that which is only speculation or even deception will not stand when compared to God’s Holy Word. There should be no fear in sticking to God’s Word.
I will have to start a blog post one day (!) and send those to the post who have supported me in the past to publicly speak out. And send me all the Greek experts you have and I will dialog with them. Dr. Daniel Wallace who is a noted Greek expert has a copy of my DVDs including the one on the Trinity. Whether he has finished viewing them yet, I don’t know. He is such a busy man, so he is not as easy to get in touch with him. But he has found my writing interesting in the past on a comp blog and he has commended me on my attitude so he gave me his home address to send my DVDs to and I expect sometime in the future to hear back from him. One thing for sure, he has not corrected me to this point and that is encouraging.
Yes, I am a bad one for that. I work hard at ministry duties during the day and then later if I can’t sleep, my blog just “calls” me so I read and if needed I respond. Our home does not yet have the siding on the outside so the house wrap flaps in the wind at night and without insulation the noise is very loud and at times drives me to distraction. It helps to wear ear plugs, but sometimes sleep evades me anyway. It is the early morning quiet hours when I can think without distraction and then what comes out of me is usually passionate and I am not worried that I am wasting time that could have been spent in ministry work.
So I may be here and I may not be here until the new Year. And yes, in case you are thinking of asking, I am tired. I truly don’t get enough sleep. But I truly LOVE this topic and I am passionate at wanting people to see how logical Paul is in his hand picked words and his precise grammar. I want to give the apostle Paul a big hug when I meet him in heaven. The more I pick him apart, the more I appreciate him and his love for women. He truly was interested in setting us all free to serve God with our gifts. Praise God for the gift to the church of the apostle Paul!
Cheryl said,
“If teaching in an “authoritative” way was wrong if you aren’t an expert on something, then why were these “women” only restricted from teaching men this way? Why not also stop them from teaching women authoritatively?”
I didn’t say that Paul was talking only about “teaching in an authoritative way.” I said he was talking about “teaching in an authoritative way that contradicts the authoritative teaching that is currently being given by the leaders of the church.” It isn’t “authoritative teaching” I’m talking about. It’s false teaching that purports to be authoritative and thus usurps the true authoritative teaching.
Cheryl said:
“I don’t see any evidence that there was an “authority” given to “accepted teachers” let alone an authority that could be “usurped”. Since the leaders were to be servants and not lording over the flock, is it their authority to act as a servant that is being’usurped’?”
I never said there was “authority” given to “accepted teachers.” I said the teaching of the “accepted teachers” was considered “authoritative” on the subjects they were teaching about. This has nothing to do with exercising authority over the congregation, any more than the scholar whose book I read to learn what an “authority” on his subject thinks, is exercising authority over my life.
It’s fine if you disagree with me, but it’s better if what you’re disagreeing with is what I actually said! lol
Hi Kristen,
Even if Cheryl did misunderstand your exact meaning for authentein, wouldn’t the basic question still apply of why the women would only be stopped from teaching the men? I can possibly understand how the women may have been poorly educated and so shouldn’t teach false things in a way that purports to be authoritative. But why only mention teaching to the men and not to the women also? What situation at Ephesus could require v12 to be written as it is?
Cheryl’s particular individual woman view does answer this question quite well.
Craig, that is where we are faced with a curious fact. Paul switched deliberately from speaking in the plural to speaking of a woman and a man. Then he continues to speak of a woman on through vs. 15, where he culminates it with “them”. Whoever the ‘them’ is, they need to continue on in holiness so that she (whoever the ‘she’ is) will be preserved in the childbearing.
It seems to me we cannot escape this. She needed to stop teaching and domineering a particular man, whether her teacher or her husband, we don’t know.
Craig, my understanding is that the way the verse is set up, the way the structure works in the Greek, is that it could either be read “I do not permit a woman to teach and I do not permit a woman to authentein a man” OR it could be read “I do not permit a woman to teach-authentein a man.” “Teach-authentein” would, in that case, mean something along the lines of “teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”
The one thing that the Greek syntax does NOT support is “I do not permit a woman to teach a man or to authentein a man.” Either both verbs take the object, or only “authentein” does.
So it is not that the women (or woman; I do think that is a very viable reading) are being told not to teach men (or “a man”). They are either being told not to teach in such a way as to authentein a man, or they are being told not to teach at all. I don’t think it makes sense to say that even an uneducated woman cannot teach at all– 1 Cor 14 says that ANYONE can have “a teaching.” If Paul had meant “they cannot teach at all as long as they’re teaching false doctrine,” I think he would have said that. Therefore, I think the reading is the second ,”I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”
As for the “they” and “she” pronouns, I believe it is possible to read the passage in terms of “she” being Eve (as representative of all womankind, and therefore able to be referred to in a form of present tense) and “they” being the offspring of her childbearing; ie, her Christian daughters in the church whom Paul is talking about. That is, the sin of Eve is reversed (“she” is “saved”) for women if “they” (Eve’s daughters) continue in faith, etc.
I am not saying this is a better reading than Cheryl’s. I have found, though, that presenting Cheryl’s reading in certain circles often results in frank incredulity and even mockery. This alternate reading at least presents another possibility for those who refuse to accept that “a woman” could mean one individual, and who therefore cling to their complementarian interpretation.
Hi Kristen,
Thanks for dialoging and trying to convince me of your position. This is the kind of defense of one’s position and back and forth dialog that I am looking for.
You said:
How would you explain the fact that Paul didn’t mention this usurping the “true authoritative” teaching in chapter 1? In chapter 1:3-4, Paul lists the reasons why Timothy has been left behind in Ephesus and then he goes on to speak about those who want to be teachers of the Law.
The Greek term for “make confident assertions” is diabebaioomai. It means to speak confidently, to insist, strongly maintain, give a firm assurance, to be positive, to give special emphasis. There is no doubt that teaching error in a confident way would be contradicting the teaching of the truth, but why would Paul not give us any hint here that there is this is actually a usurping of authority? He uses no words about authority or usurping a position, office or power that belonged only to some. Can you explain to me why Paul would speak about their confident claims but fail to connect this to an authority they were usurping?
Can you also explain why these false teachers in chapter 1 would not be also usurping “authority” but only the women mentioned in chapter 2? Were there no false teachers who were men who were teaching in a confident way? Why then would Paul single out women and not also tell the men that they were not to teach in this way?
You also said:
I don’t know how to see it otherwise because you used the word “usurp”. This word means much more than being an authority on a subject.
To usurp authority means:
When you use terms like usurp, the term has a meaning behind it that is assumed. Perhaps you need to restate what you mean without saying that there was an authority to usurp. Otherwise I don’t understand what you are saying about these “women” who have been called out in a special way by Paul.
In my view the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is one of the false teachers from chapter 1 but she is in a unique position in that she isn’t openly teaching her error. She is teaching only one person and this would have presented a special problem.
If many women were in view in 1 Timothy 2:12, then why could they not have been dealt with in chapter 1 with all the other men who were teaching error in a strong and confident way? Why did Paul need to specifically stop only women from teaching their confident errors and why were they only not to teach these errors to men?
I appreciate anyone trying to convince me of their position. I am thoroughly convinced of my own position because it fits without contradiction, but I am open to be convinced of another position in the hopes that there might be more than one option that is plausible from the inspired words and the inspired text that does not contradict the text.
Hi Kristen,
While I was working on my response, you responded to Craig which I did not see. I have only a little time left this morning, so I will answer this one and then have to leave.
You said:
The second option is not correct. There are two verbs that are joined together with a conjunction. The conjunction cannot be ignored and I have not seen a Greek manuscript without the conjunction. Therefore the two verbs are two activities and not one activity with a modifier. Comps have pointed this out for a long time and I have to agree with them. If Paul had wanted to say otherwise the grammar would have to be different. I believe that it is very important that we do not change the grammar to support our view, but that our view changes to match what is already there. I know that there are some high level egals that have taken the approach that it is one activity that is forbidden, but I have never seen an proof that they have a leg to stand on. We need to be fully honest with the text and let it say what it says whether we like it or not. There is a reason why there are two things forbidden and the reason is deception and the harm that teaching deception brings.
You are right. But the problem is that this is not what the grammar says. Not unless you are willing to take a scissors and cut out the little conjunction word. It must be considered and cannot be ignored.
It is pretty obvious that both actions are directed towards the man. Paul certainly couldn’t be saying that it is not right for a woman to authentein a man but okay for a woman to authentein a woman. I think you would agree with me here.
This simply does not hold up to the inspired grammar. It is two verbs, not one. And the object fits both the actions that are joined together by a conjunction.
These things are very important because if we don’t actually work with the grammar as it is, what comp is going to listen to us? While we may not know 100% what authentein means, we can know what is being forbidden. The question should be “who” is “a woman” that is forbidden from doing these bad things and “why” is she being singled out? Since we already know that the stopping of false teaching is the key to why Timothy was left in Ephesus, all we need to know is “who” is Paul talking about and “why” is the situation in chapter 2 any different than chapter 1 so that he needed to clearly explain to Timothy about silencing a teacher and why Paul was so confident that she would be saved. I think that when we look for the “who” and “why” we won’t have a problem with the exact grammar that lists two forbidden things that are joined together with a conjunction.
Another note, I wonder why these same teachers who are insisting that Paul has one action in mind are not saying that same thing about Jezebel in the book of Revelation? Was Jesus unhappy with the church allowing her to do two things or one? If it is two as the grammar shows, then why are not these same teachers insisting it is only one thing just as they do in 1 Timothy 2:12? That really confuses me. I would really like to know.
I agree. It is amazing at how some “uneducated” people can have a real gift of wisdom in teaching. However misunderstanding something and the need to be educated in the truth is another matter and I think that is what Paul is getting at in chapter 1. Formal education in schooling is not a requirement but proper understanding of God’s truth is very important.
I think he did say that with this one woman. He very strongly implies this by the question of her salvation. When Paul says she will be saved “if”… we know that her salvation is future not at the time that Paul was writing.
This reading simply does not fit the grammar. If you really do believe that it does, please educate me. Give me a grammar source two verbs joined together by one conjunction can be one action that is modified by the other verb. Honestly, I have never seen it and I want to be faithful to the grammar.
This I find interesting:
Can you explain to me how a dead woman can be saved in the future as a representative of all womankind?
Can you explain to me how what all Christian daughters in the church will accept the salvation of Eve? How would what they do bring the salvation of all womankind? This doesn’t make sense to me. Can you explain this?
I don’t understand this at all. It wasn’t Eve’s sin that was passed on to all of us and is doing good things able to change the past? Will my faith in Jesus change Eve or her destiny? How can this be?
Sure. But no one yet has presented a viable hole in my argument. In fact I once presented my argument to a huge group of men many of whom were pastors and I asked them to find a hole in my argument. Not a single one of them could find a viable hole. Now if my view was so laughable, then I wonder why no one has been able to refute it? In fact the argument has grown stronger through the years as I have learned more about the surrounding verses that I had not known before and because I have learned about specific grammar that applies to my argument that I was unaware of before. Laugh if they may, but my take is that those who laugh do so because it is easier to laugh than to try to refute the “error”.
I would agree with this if it matched the grammar. I am very uncomfortable with accepting as a possibility a reasoning that has so many holes and which must change the grammar to make it fit. I just want what fits the grammar and the inspired words and if someone can refute my view and can show how the inspired grammar does not fit, then they would be doing me a favor if I am indeed wrong.
Okay back to work for me. The day is long advancing and I have so much ministry work to do.
Thanks Kristen for taking me on and working hard to work through these very tough verses! The truth worth working hard to reason through.
Cheryl, I’m sure you will agree that our English grammar construction and ancient Koine Greek grammar construction may not always be the same. I am relying on the scholarship of Phillip Payne, author of “Man and Woman, One in Christ,” for the statement that the Greek conjunction “oude” ties together the verbs “teach” and “authentein” as one, and that the placement of the object “man” after “authentein” prevents it from being an object of “teach” as well.
Here is an essay by Payne that explains his position:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf
As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.
I’m not saying anything against your reading; in fact, I’m inclined to support it. But you do know that people say something similar to what you just said about the Greek grammar having to mean that “teach” and “authentein” are to be read separately: that to use “a woman” with NO contextual indications that he is talking about one specific woman and not “a woman” as a general singular, is too hard to believe. When Paul said, “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” the word “who,” followed by the specific story of what happened, makes it contextually clear that he’s talking about one man. But the “a woman” in 1 Tim 2 has no such contextual indications. Therefore, it’s hard for people to grasp– and when I present my argument that “she” may mean Eve, a lot of them are more willing to accept that, based on Paul’s similar treatment of Adam in Romans 5.
To me, the point is not that we have to get comps to accept one particular egal reading, no matter how hard it is for them to do so. I’m happy if comps will seriously consider ANY possible egal reading. If from there, they move to the “one woman” reading you favor, that’s all well and good. Baby steps, baby steps. New wine only pours into old wineskin in drops, but sometimes Christians need a period of time of receiving drops in their old wineskins before they become willing to replace them with new wineskins to hold ALL the new wine.
Here is a quote from Payne’s essay that encapsulates what I’m saying:
“Unless 1 Tim 2.12 is the one exception, none of Paul’s oujdev constructions selectively transfers only a qualifier from the second element to the first. Whenever Paul does use text following oujdev to qualify the element before oujdev, the entire construction
expresses this by combining the two elements to express one idea.”
With regards to the word “usurp” — based on your definition, that does seem to be the wrong word to use. Payne says the most likely sense is “assume a stance of independent authority” or “seize or assume authority for oneself.” This would relate specifically to men because it was towards the male teachers that this was being done.
Finally, I have looked up 1 Tim 1:6-7 in the interlinear: did you know that the word Paul uses there is not “men,” but the word “tisine” (plural, “tines”) that is most often translated “some”? So we cannot read 1 Tim 1:6-7 as if it were about “men” in contrast to 1 Tim 2:11-15 being about “women” (or “a woman”). Some of these false teachers in 1 Tim 1 could have been the woman or women of 1 Tim 2, in which case, both passages would apply to them (or her). Or it could be that there were no male false teachers at all; that the word “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 refers to EXACTLY the same group as in 1 Tim 2. That these are not the same group as in 1 Tim 1:19-20 is clear, in that the “some” there have gone beyond confidently teaching when they don’t know what they’re talking about, but have actually “rejected faith and a good conscience.” In any case, the issue is not that the “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 can go ahead and “assume authority for themselves” while the women in 1 Tim 2:11-15 can’t– if they are the same group of people.
BTW, Cheryl, I note that your blog software is starting to have trouble again with having so many comments in one thread. You might want to start a new one. 🙂
Okay, Kristen, good idea. I have prepared a new post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/12/14/1-timothy-212-two-prohibitions-or-one/ Although it will take me some time to put my thoughts down for the post, you are all welcome to post your views, questions, comments etc at the new location. I am going to close down the comments on this post so that we don’t end up losing the comments into outer space again.
Kristen if you would like to post either of the last two comments to start out for the post, you are certainly welcome to do so. I think that these things should be discussed and reasons for the views that we hold are welcome to be defended.
Remember passionate debate is welcome and encouraged and we are to remember that this is an in-house debate so we are completely free to treat each other with love and respect while we passionately disagree. Alrighty then, everything is set. I will go ahead and close out the comments here.
Comments are closed.