Cheryl Schatz

Craig,
You said:

As there is no indefinite article (”a”) in Greek, and v11 just begins with “Woman ….”, my daughter suggested that the woman’s actual name may have been “woman” 🙂

You have pointed out the difficulty in that Greek is not completely like English because there is no indefinite article.

Craig,
You said:

This leaves me in no doubt that with the understanding of the traditional Greek text books “the woman” of v14b would have to be alive at the time of writing.

Good job! I can see that you did your homework. My next post will close the door on the verbal aspect theory so you can see why there is no other way (including the verbal aspect theory) that changes the traditional grammar view. The refutation is very similar to the work that I had to do years ago when the JW’s used the same aspect to try to deny the Deity of Jesus. The conditions surrounding the differing view were not met as they are limited in scope and do not apply. More in a bit when I finish my article.

Kristen,
You have pushed in a good way 😉 This is what I need just like I need Craig to push me. The areas where you need more info or need the info said in a different way that will connect the dots for you is very important. It is an act of love towards you and Craig and the others that I am working hard to connect all of your dots. Hopefully this will give more help where you need it.
Much love,
Cheryl

Craig #239
You said:

So could Paul be referring to the Ephesian woman in 14b, but because he has just mentioned Eve in v13, and Eve was also called “the woman” in Gen, the term “the woman” would remind Tim of Eve as well, and be like saying “like Eve”?

Yes, I believe so. It is an outline of the original. Paul deliberately used the term “the woman” when it was more natural to say “Eve” with Adam. But if Eve is the outline (exact image) of the woman in Ephesus, then Paul could both link her to Eve while still referring back to the problem woman.

pinklight,
I hope your week goes well. Thanks for all the things you have said. Wish I could keep up with all the comments, but I am trying to work them into my next post.

Craig,
I will be interested to see what your friend says to your email and to the grammar response I will be giving in my next post. Love your daughter’s suggestion that her name is “Woman”!

Kristen,
I am trying hard to put the information into the next post with you in mind. I hope it gives you lots to think about and to realize why I cannot accept either the comp argument or the argument of many egals on the passage.

TL,
It is good to bounce back and forth in order to thoroughly test all things out. When I was working on my own understanding that is what I did and then I started to reject the ones that failed the test of fitting within verses 11-15 and fitting within the entire context of the letter.

Craig,
The argument that Payne is making is that the two infinitives cannot have the same object if the case of the object does not match both of the infinitives. That argument is rejected by the grammar source that I quoted. The next question would be whether the object must be attached to both infinitives or just one. In all the other examples that Payne gives, both take the object. It seems like this is the normal assumption.

Yet one still needs to check the context to see what the context suggests. If “woman” is not generic, then having both infinitives take on the object “man” would qualify the kind of teaching as private, not public. If the teaching that is being restricted is public and the teaching is attached to deception, then the mention of this specific person makes sense. It is a specific issue to deal with that is different than the restrictions from chapter 1. If the teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 that is being restricted is public and to the whole church, the there is no need to mention the woman as she would be covered along with all the other false, but deceived teachers mentioned in chapter 1.

I believe that the object attached to “teach” defines the problem as a hidden or private issue.

TL,
I do believe that the command for “a woman” to learn must take precedence but I believe that not teaching is not the same thing as saying be quiet. It is my opinion that the kind of teaching that she is doing is linked to authentein and both are linked to deception and transgression.

Craig and gengwall,
You really “rock”!

I would jump in here but no time to even think. I am up to my eye balls in alligators (bookkeeping and other high priority things) and I will continue to work on my new post as soon as I get a spare moment. There are so many opportunities to bring out a better way to say things with such good comments coming onto my blog.

Thanks all you WIM followers, you make this a great place to hang around!
Talk to you guys soon.

Connie,
Welcome to my blog!

I am sad that you have experienced so much prejudice, but I trust that the Lord is working through many areas, such as the books you pointed out, as well as our ministry, along with others to change the attitude of prejudice in His body.

May the Lord richly bless you as you serve Him!

Okay, I have the first of my two promised articles up. The first is here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/06/05/prohibit-teaching-a-man/ I will start working on the second which will include the applicable part of the verbal aspect theory. This second article is likely to take me a bit longer as I will put as much detail as I can into the article to try to satisfy all the questions that I have received.

What I have found is that sometimes the intricacies of Greek grammar can cause a person to become brain dead or at least just cross eyes in that the person fails to continue to read all of the text and gets hung up on one tense which is taken care of by the indisputable remaining grammar that must go along with it. Hopefully I will be able to bring it down to a level that will make it understandable to all so that none of us has to have crossed eyes and we can see that Paul has really crossed all of his “t”s and dotted all of his “i”s in his amazing work in 1 Timothy 2:11-15!

Craig,
You said:

I’m interested to hear what you have found about the verbal aspect theory.

I will say more about this later, but for now I can give you something to look into. Ask your Greek grammar friends if they are referring to the historical perfect or dramatic perfect. Once you get your answer, look up these terms on the internet. Type in Greek grammar “historical perfect” and note the limitations for the historical perfect and then see if it applies to 1 Timothy 2:14. You will be able to google Dr. Daniel Wallace’s material on line on this subject as well. See what you can figure out on your own and I will fill you in on the refutation later. This is part of the “verbal aspect theory”.

gengwall,
Excellent comments! Thanks also for popping in to give me a break!

Craig #169,
Your example shows a general usage but doesn’t exactly fit 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as there is no definite article and remaining in the class is not akin to salvation being dependent on any boy who is being punched.

The fact is that “a woman” or “a girl” can be generic. However the complete context will determine whether the generic meaning fits the text.

More later (probably with the article unless there are additional thoughts brought up here).

Craig,
A couple of things here. First of all when I did my DVD, I had not researched the grammar on verse 14 as I didn’t see it as a problem or a solution and I took it as I had always been taught. It wasn’t until sometime after my DVD came out that I was challenged with the grammar from verse 14 and it first came from the comp camp. Then later I learned a point of grammar that I had not learned before – the anaphoric usage. The anaphoric hinges on a usage of the noun first of all without the definite article and then the reference is used with the definite article. One cannot have an anaphoric reference without using the definite article for one of the instances. In your reference in #163 you did not use “the girl”. This is essential to use the definite article to have an anaphoric reference back to the indefinite noun.

Lastly the translation from 1 Tim 2:14 where “the woman” became a sinner is not a good translation. Most Bibles take the form that the NET bible uses:

NET | 1 Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.

This does not mean that she had not sinned before she was deceived into transgression. But it is a serious sin that is a consequence from being deceived.

Craig,
You ask very deep questions and this gives me an opportunity to provide deep answers to those who are working hard to comprehend all of this. Thanks so much for pushing me to answer the challenges that you have been getting. Once again this is a much bigger answer than having it buried in comments so I will include your concerns in the second post I will write in answer to Kristen’s questions/concerns. I will include comments on the “verbal aspect theory” as well so you will have an answer to your friends.

As an aside, I want to say that I have worked hard to dig for an answer that has no holes and fits the text without contradiction. I also am committed to answer any challenge that comes up towards my findings as I am fully convinced that truth stands strong and sure and challenges are an opportunity to bolster what is truth and actually works to make it stronger. It is a win-win situation.

Also my work was done with my nose deep into the text and into the grammar and I did not have a set person to follow who had already completely plowed the way through the text as I now see it. That didn’t matter to me as it doesn’t qualify as a necessary test for truth. I have been told by many that my work qualifies for a doctoral thesis. What that means is that my work is ground breaking and that in order for it to stand on its own, it must be able to withstand opposition, questions and challenges. I am more than happy to entertain any question or challenge to my viewpoint. I may not always know the answer right away, but I am confident that the Scriptures hold the answer to the challenge against truth. If my thesis is truth, it must stand the challenge. If it is true and stands the challenge it deserves being accepted after it passes the test. Whether I have a degree or not does not matter as far as truth goes. I have read many works by those who have doctorate degrees and I can see huge holes in their work that you could drive a mac truck through them. I have even been privileged to be in the position to have asked questions of some of those who have such degrees and I have not received answers to my questions. That is very telling for truth should stand the challenge.

I have also seen those who are not studied in the institutes of learning, yet their work has held solidly as truth. I am so glad that God’s gifts are not based on educational standing and that God has been pleased to use those who are not regarded in this world for their education. The bottom line is that truth is provable.

I will comment here back and forth a bit as I can later, but just to let you know that the full answer will not be in this comment section. Hopefully I will remember to give a link for those who are reading the comments at a later date. If I forget to do that maybe some kind soul will provide the link so that those who are searching for answers will be able to read what I provide.

Oh, and thanks for the correction regarding who said that they don’t always agree with everything said in the comment section. I was reading from my email and the blockquotes can sometimes mislead me regarding what is quoted by another and what is their own comment. I stand corrected on the quote.

Thanks a bunch, Craig for all you have commented and challenged here! It is people like you who have pushed me to go above and beyond my own completed work to make it even more accessible to others.

Craig,
You said:

I disagree with things said on here all the time but I won’t comment cause I don’t have the passion for the subject.

Huh? No way! Disagree? All the time? Sheesh 😉

pinklight,
You said:

Is it possible then that Paul wrote the said principle and not about a particular woman and man in those verses to then in v15 actually write about two real people? It’s not possible because v15 begins with the conjunction “but” which connects it to the previous verses. Grammatically it’s not possible.

Thanks for that reminder! Yes, pinklight is right in that the entire passage is connected with conjunctions and is actually one long sentence. It isn’t two thoughts but one long solution-first-then-problem-then-ultimate solution. And everything is connected to the other parts.

TL,
You said:

Another way I partially also subscribe to is viewing vs. 13-14 and maybe even 15 to be speaking against some gnostic teachings. Some gnostic teachings taught that is was the woman who was ‘born’ first and the man who was deceived. They also taught that a woman could not be spiritual while performing the very earthly function of having children. Now I’m wondering if Paul isn’t ‘killing two birds with one stone’, in saying what he did. He could be addressing all I just said, while at the same time addressing the false gnostic teachings as well.

This may very well be a subtle refutation of this false teaching. So let me ask you, why do you think it is such a serious error to teach that the woman was created first and that the man was the one who was deceived?

TL,
You made very good points!

Going back to Paul’s epistle we see that he is treating the ones from vs. 3-7 differently than those who ‘rejected the faith’. And this is after Paul points out that he himself received mercy because he was an insolent blasphemer who did these things ignorantly in unbelief. There is a difference in not knowing (ignorantly in unbelief) and in one who knows and then rejects (Hymenaeus and Alexander).

Amen! There is still going to be a personal consequence to sinning because of being deceived so we need to be careful and not careless in what we trust, but there is an assurance that God offers mercy to those who are not openly defiant in His face.

gengwall,
You said:

I was foreman on a jury one time and Ihad to keep minding one of the jurors that we were the judges of facts, not possibilities. The lawyers were responsible for giving us the facts and we had to restrain our analysis and conclusions on those facts alone (as well as our determination of how trustworthy they were). Paul is an excellent attorney AND a trustworthy witness.

Excellent! That is also how I look at it. As a crusty old lawyer used to say “Just the facts Ma’am!”

Craig,
You said:

If I know people are willing to be critical of an idea when they don’t agree with it, then it makes it more meaningful when you do agree and say encouraging things.

AMEN!! Debating and critiquing, with an attitude of love and respect can be very helpful and bring about meaningful dialog and it makes the words of thanks and “I get it!” much sweeter!

Craig,
You also said:

4 I know both egals and comps who can see the force of Cheryl’s argument from v15, and yet they still have difficulty accepting that v11,12 are speaking of particular individuals. This makes me wonder “are there any other ways of understanding v11-15, where Paul could be expressing a principle in v11,12 while still making sense of the “she” and “they” of v15.
Pinklight, I understand that you are very hesitant about constructing possible scenarios to explain the meaning of bible passages, but don’t we use background information learned from outside the bible to understand difficult passages quite frequently?

Background information is very helpful to understand the cultural context. However background information will not help us in alleviating the problem of a rogue pronoun missing its corresponding noun. The pronoun “they” cannot attach to a missing noun located in a previous unpublished letter. A pronoun must have a corresponding match and so this is where we must conduct the parameters for our search.

Anyway, suppose Timothy had asked Paul about a particular woman and a particular man. Could Paul have answered this by first stating the principles that would apply to the specific situation in v11,12 (while Paul and Timothy would know exactly who these principles would be relevant to), and then in v15 spoken of them as “she” (the woman) and “they” (the woman and the man/her husband).

This seems highly unlikely. How is it that all of these deceived women are only teaching one man each? Are we really to assume that there are perhaps many deceived women who are not teaching publicly but are teaching and authentein(ing) one man each and that these women will all be saved if the one man they are teaching (who by the way are all saved and not in need of salvation for themselves) will walk with them in faith, love and self control? If this is the case then this is common and not about one woman at all. But if it isn’t about one woman, then what do we do with verse 14 “the woman” who is in the transgression? How would we know that we are to have two different groups instead of one woman throughout the entire context? And lastly, if this was such a common problem that Paul would make a general statement about the generic woman who is teaching one generic man, then why is this problem never mentioned anywhere else? Can we learn general things about this situation that can apply to ourselves and the Church? Yes, I do think so, but I think it would be very hard to defend. I think it would be akin to saying that Paul was giving a general statement about 1 Cor. 5:1

1 Corinthians 5:1 (NASB95)
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.

This could be a generic man who is living with his generic father’s wife, but I don’t think so. The passage does not have names attached and “someone” is very indefinite but I don’t think that it is a generic principle that is being referenced.

This is very similar to Cheryl’s view, but just with a slight twist in v11,12 for those who can’t see the Greek as directly referring to a particular woman and man. Does this make any sense, or is this not possible from the grammar as well?

I think your view will be harder to prove for you will have to deal with the issue of why every false woman teacher is only teaching one man. Aren’t there any false teachers who are teaching a man and a couple of women? Or two men? Or a man, a woman and two children? No, I think the anaphoric reference from verse 14 back to verses 11 & 12 forces us to see this as a specific example. More on that later.

Hi Craig,
I am still working through the comments here. You said:

3 I know both egals and comps who can see the force of Cheryl’s argument from v15, but find it difficult to see how v11-15 then fits in with the context eg Kristen. My last attempt @#102 was an attempt to see v11-15 as dealing with the same subject as the whole of chapter 2 and find some possible explanation for why Paul could have referred to the parties involved as “she” and “they” in v15, and “a woman” and “a man” in v12. From the responses I have got it seems like I am barking up the wrong tree and just showing my ignorance of grammar -it never has been a strong point of mine. I asked
“Does that make any sense at all as a possibility to anyone else besides me???”
I have one hundred No’s from Pinklight 🙂 and zero Yes’s so far. Doesn’t look very promising!

I don’t particularly like grammar, but I have come to understand that it is a friend and an ally. Grammar forms a protective boundary around our speculations and reigns them in. This is a good thing because I believe that God meant His Word to be understand and thus it doesn’t need to be subject to our guessing. I would agree that without the grammar guardian, your view could be a valid option.

Craig,
I would also like to challenge you to give me any example in the Scripture where an definite man (or woman) is spoken of without the definite article alongside with a singular form without the definite article that means generic man. I think you will find that this is inconsistent usage of words and would make one’s communication difficult to understand.

Craig,
Continuing on, you said:

If Timothy has asked him about a particular woman and a particular man, or a particular wife and husband, or a particular woman and several men, Paul, with this specific situation in mind, could be stating the principle that he would go by and apply to this case “A woman should learn and I do not permit this kind of behaviour of a deceived woman teaching falsely and authenteining a man. He then gives the reason for this principle in v13,14. Then he gives the specific outcome in v15 that will occur in this case if the principles of v11,12 are followed. So the “she” and the “they” refers back to the letter of Timothy rather that v12.
If Tim has written about a particular wife and husband, then “she” refers to the wife and “they” refers to the wife and husband. If Tim wrote about a woman and several men, then “she” would be the woman and “they” could be the men.

Here is the problem with “a woman” and “a man” as “men” – Paul would have had to say “a woman” and “men”. It would be inconsistent to make part of the sentence as a singular particular woman and the rest as generic man. Paul would have had to refer to “several men” who are not “all men” but particular men, in the plural. The clear way of communicating this would be “I do not allow a woman (anaphoric reference to “the woman” of verse 14) to teach or authentein men.

Craig,
You said:

Is it too “outside the box” to wonder whether Paul could be referring to his prior communication with Timothy and what Tim and Paul both knew about the situation rather than what he has just written?

Yes. “Outside” the box thinking is very important to dig into the facts, but “outside” of what is revealed takes one only into speculation and then God’s inspiration becomes subject to our speculation.

When I look at a problem that needs to be solved from the Scripture, I look at it from a forensic point of view. What details can I mine from the text? What specific grammar can I find? What was previously said that is being referred to in the text? What is referenced later on in the text?

If we are looking at a man’s writings we may go down a lot of rabbit trails speculating on what he may mean. But when it comes to inspiration, we look at every inspired piece of the text as primary evidence first. We also consider the culture of the day, but we do not force fit it into the text. And lastly grammar plays a key role in figuring out what the text means. If we must read into the text improper grammar, then we are in error and must keep looking.

So could Paul be referring to “they” from a previous letter. No. That would be improper grammar. “They” is a pronoun that needs to attach to something. While Paul can say “a woman” (a noun) without identifying the specific woman, he cannot say “they” without a reference back to who he is referring to or the text would be impossible to understand.

For example in 1 Timothy 2 what if Paul had said:
“I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. I am also not allowing her to teach but she must remain silent.”

…this would be nonsensical because we would not know who “she” is that Paul is not allowing to teach since there is no singular “she” in the text and it would be improper to attach a singular pronoun to “women”. In the same way, Paul has to reference who the “they” are or he cannot say “they”. The pronoun has to go back to something in the text or it is uninspired nonsense meant to mislead and confuse.

Now if “a woman” and “a man” is generic, they could refer to all people, but “a man” that is generic cannot be referenced to as a plural pronoun. A generic man is always called “he” not “they”. So the rule is that you can use a noun and a pronoun to reference back to the noun, but you cannot use a pronoun unless there is something in the text to refer back to. God’s inspired Word would never break basic grammar rules.

We often say how it could be like listening to one side of a phone call, or a reply to a letter we don’t have.

I agree that a private letter would be like listening to one side of the story, but a letter must also follow grammar rules if it is inspiration from God Himself. We may not have all the details, but we certainly are not left with improper grammar. Thoughts?

Kristen,
You said:

I think the idea that Paul is talking about an individual woman would be well-served by doing a post that makes it clearer how we know Paul is changing the subject matter from the earlier verses, and why a section about one individual woman and her husband fits in here, sandwiched between general statements about women and men as groups, and general statements about qualifications for leaders– rather than in with the specific stuff about other individuals in Chapter 1.

Context is where I’m having trouble with this view, and context is where I think this interpretation is still weakest, without further development of the argument.

I will also work on a post along this line. I will apologize in advance for being slow. I am overworked at the present, preparing for three talks on Women in Ministry for July and I need to prioritize my efforts as best I can as I have a sick mother-in-law who may cause us to drop everything to attend to her. But the things we have been talking about are very much on my mind to provide a one-stop place for the answer to your question.

pinklight,
You said:

I mean, if Eve truly did represent all women wouldn’t we have to know about it? In other words, wouldn’t God have made it very clear through Paul? And since it surley is not clear since “she” must be interpreted to mean “Eve” then how could any woman really know? We know that Adam represnted all mankind, so how come we don’t kow anything similar about Eve?

Very profound questions. Indeed how can we know? The fact is that if it is not found in the Scriptures and we are adding to the text what we think it means rather than mining the text for what is already there, we cannot know and anyone’s thoughts on what it “could” mean are just as good as someone else’s.

Craig,
You said:

In the example I gave @77, say the woman (let’s call her Betty) had actually led no one astray yet but was trying to with 20 different men, don’t you think Paul could still have expressed “I do not permit Betty to authentein a man”? I can agree that he could also have said “I do not permit Betty to authentein men”, but both sound possible to me.
If Paul still had this idea in his mind of deceived Betty endeavouring to enrich many men in their spiritual experience through sex with her, could he not also have expressed it as “But she will be saved… if they (meaning all the men she was trying to influence, or possibly her and the men)?

There is a problem with adding more people into “they” than what Paul meant. If by “they” Paul meant the deceived woman and her husband, then one person is vital to bringing her to salvation and his influence so important that it is mentioned by Paul. But what if the woman had been teaching 10 men? If we include all ten in the “they” then all ten are vital or she won’t come to salvation. What if 8 out of the 10 will work with her? Will she come to salvation? 8 out of the 10 is no longer the complete “they”. What happens if her teaching was broadcast to the entire world? Would the entire world have to participate so that “she” can be saved? Do you see the problem with making “they” a crowd or at least even one more than Paul intended?