Cheryl Schatz

gengwall,
You said:

First, why not start immediately with the definate article in vs. 11. Second, what should Timothy do with other couples who might be in the same boat? If we could be certain that there was ONLY this one couple in Ephesus that had this problem, I would say there is no reason to stray into a general prohibition.

I am very glad to read this and I think the proof is the fact that Paul only is discussing only one deceived woman teaching her husband because Timothy is given the promise that she will be saved if… If there were other couples in the same situation can anyone read Paul’s claim to be the worst of the worst and then not believe that Paul would also have faith that they too could be saved if…?

But I don’t believe we can be certain of that. In fact, I we can’t even be certain that Timothy wrote only about the one couple.

I believe the proof is in the fact that only one woman is said to be still in the transgression and only one woman’s salvation is questioned. These two things would be out of order if there was more than one woman that was included in the special prohibition.

Timothy could have said “we have some trouble in a few marriages in the congregation. One such troubled marriage is that of Jhn and Jane Doe, but they are simply emblimatic of several others. Here are Jane and John’s specifics…” I mean, we really don’t know whether or not Timothy wrote anything beyond of his specific couple.

Then it appears that it is safer to just accept what is written and not to speculate about what is not written and what may be going on in Ephesus beyond what God wanted us to know about.

But we do know that Paul did not begin his instructions for this problem by clearly identifying a the specific couple.

This is not true. An anarthrous noun does not mean that it isn’t about a specific man or woman. It is not about the definite article that is not there in the beginning that would disqualify this to be about one couple. It is the context. I believe that verse 15 would be written in a prejudicial way if Paul was ignoring all deceived women to claim that one of them could be saved. And the fact that the prohibition hinges on the deception of Eve and she is compared to a specific woman is just more evidence that not all women are “like” Eve but this specific woman was in the same boat as Eve was.

I am not the brightest tool in the tool shed, but I could figure out how to deal with similar problems but different by working through the one example given by Paul. Paul doesn’t have to be generic for Timothy to understand a principle given because of one deceived female teacher.

Now I would seriously consider other examples of where Paul spoke this way about other examples or used generic examples of specific problems, but I don’t know of any other examples that would prove that Paul had a whole whack of unidentified people in mind so that he had to create a generic example. It just doesn’t fit in my mind. Perhaps someone can make this one fit, but honestly I can’t see it because there are so many improbabilities.

Definately a possibility, but it doesn’t fit with the fact that Paul began without being definite about who he was speaking of. It is just as likely IMO that Paul would go from general to specific as it would be that he would go from specific to general, and the former fits the grammar.

I think you are stuck on thinking that “woman” without the definite article cannot be a specific woman. Just as “man” without the definite article cannot be a specific man. Paul has used this grammar before, but I don’t think this is going to make you accept an anarthrous noun because you are stuck in a general thinking pattern. Maybe we just need to let this one go and perhaps you may be more open to seeing that it is possible (and consistent) for Paul to be speaking about a particular woman and a particular man and them alone in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Okay, I’m back and just going to catch up on gengwall’s comments that I didn’t address.

Gengwall @210 you said:

Yes – I’m saying that maybe Paul wanted Timothy to understand vs. 11 and 12 to mean “any” couple who were in similar circumstances. That doesn’t mean that Timothy’s specific woman isn’t in view exactly. It just means that she isn’t the only one.

Then why should Paul just leave it with a generic couple(s)? With this view he is giving a specific prohibition to more than one couple who may or may not exist. Yet he appears in that view to not be concerned that about deceived men learning, but only the (representative) deceived woman. This seems so unlike Paul. If Paul was going to make this about a generic deceived person, he would not have put in the gender since clearly he wants all deceived people to learn the truth and he believes that if he could receive mercy from God when he was the worst of the worst, then surely all deceived people are in the place to receive mercy from God “if”…

So for Paul to create a specific “class” because of one deceived woman and then leave all the other deceived people out as he only believes one woman can be saved, just doesn’t fit the positive message of chapter one that even the worst of the worst of the unbelieving deceived persons (himself) can be brought to God through God’s own mercy. To change that positive message in chapter two to make only one person eligible for God’s mercy is a clear contradiction to Paul’s message in my opinion.

Ephesus was a very pagan city with, female dominated cults. It isn’t too far of a stretch to believe that there might have been others involved in similar “authentein” behavior. Although I wouldn’t go as far as saying it was unique to Ephesus, it may be that it was predominant in Ephesus.

If this was the case then there was no need at all to list one specific woman who was doing these things. No need at all because why pick out one woman from a whole “class” of women doing the same thing? That wouldn’t be Paul’s style. Paul lumps all the false deceived teachers together in chapter 1 and are we to believe that he now will separate one woman out of a myriad of false deceived women teachers, such woman alone is capable of being saved?

Timothy is to stop his example woman and any others he may run into per vs. 12. His specific woman certainly is not exempt from the prohibition. Nor may she be the only one needing prohibition.

If this is the case there is no need to pull one woman out of the group. Just stop them all.

Paul could have continued in the plural but Timothy provided a specific example, and one that was taking place in a marriage setting, which necessitates a shift to singular.

This confuses me. Aren’t you saying that there are possibly many women who are teaching their husbands? Then why would Paul have to switch to singular if it is one real person plus many more possible same-case problems? And how would we know who the “she” is from verse 15? Would it be the generic “woman” from verse 11 or only “the woman” from verse 14? How could we be sure?

The only “they” that has ever been in view is an individual wife and her husband, whether they are generic or Timothy’s example couple.

So we can never really know what Paul meant then she he has been going back and forth between a generic couple and a real couple?

Since the focus has shifted in vs. 14 away from the generic and to the specific couple, the most immediate “they” is that specific couple.

But then does it fit Paul’s positive belief that if he could be saved, God could have mercy on anyone, if only a specific woman can be saved and the other “generic” woman cannot be saved? What kind of message would that be telling to Timothy and then through the letter to the church? Is this really consistent with Paul and the rest of his letter?

I want to emphasize that I am not insisting it has to be this way.

Well, that is good. But it seems to me that you do not believe that there is only one woman involved in verses 11 & 12 so there must be another explanation for who “woman” is in these verses. Is it okay if I take a passionate defense of my position, questioning the possibility that there are other women in similar situations who will not be assured that they can be saved too? I believe that it is when we push and prod each other, that we can see through some of the uncertainties and have an iron sharpens iron moment now and again including me learnin things too.

But many people struggle with the lack of the definate article in vss. 11 and 12.

There should be less struggle if people realize that the lack of the definite article does not mean that the noun is not definite. The context will help us understand whether it is generic or whether it is a particular couple that Paul and Timothy both know about.

This is a possible explanation for that grammar which doesn’t detract at all from Paul’s central instruction nor leave Timothy’s specific couple out in the cold.

But does it not detract from the positive message that anyone who has been deceived can come out of this deception? The very fact that Paul lists a singular woman who will depend on at least one other to come out of her deception leaves other couples out in the cold. Surely one woman will be depend on other deceived couples in order for her to be saved. Verse 15 is so specific that any other explanation seems to become nonsense other than one deceived woman who is in Ephesus and the help of her husband to bring her to correct teaching with her willingness to submit to the truth, will bring her salvation through the only Savior we all have who came as a result of a promise because of the deception of the first woman. It is a brilliant plan of God’s, I believe, to take what the enemy meant for harm and release the captive by God’s mercy and grace.

I have never implied or even considered that verses 11 and 12 are about “any” woman.

Then why did you call her “generic” woman? A generic woman by definition is any woman. This is why the comps ALWAYS make her a generic woman. Again, reread Neo’s argument above and you will see that the generic woman in singular or plural means:

“she” refers to any woman, and “they” refers to every woman….quote from Neopatriarch

Well the rain has stopped and so I am back to work outside.

Talk to you later.

Alligator

gengwall,
You said:

But it isn’t about any woman and that is so clear. It is about a particular kind of woman based on a real example from Timothy. The prohibition isn’t for any woman, it for only a woman who is teaching false doctrine and domineering her husband. You are confusing “generic” with “general”.

Is it really so clear?

I included what “generic” meant in my comment #259 above. How am I confusing this with general? If you read neopatriarch’s “refutation” he is consistently using the term “generic” and he means just what the dictionary gives for the term “generic”.

A generic woman is built on an archetype and the archetype here is plainly described.

The only plain described type that I see is the deceived woman who is compared to Eve. But if there is one woman who is compared to Eve, where are we to see an entire “class” compared to Eve to get an archetype for a special “class” that goes beyond the regular “woman” class if “a woman” is merely generic and not a specific person?

In addition, we have a specific example on top of all of that. There is nothing in the passage that would connect the prohibition to the women in vs. 10 but it is very clear that the prohibition is associated with the type of real woman brought forward in vs. 14.

Verse 14 is not set up as a “type” of woman. In fact the only “type” that is set up in the book of Timothy is not attached to a gender but is either those who are deceived or those who are deceivers. Why would Paul set up a “type” attached to a woman? Would that not be assuming that deceived people that teach their spouse their deception are only women?

Maybe we could help Paul out. How could we word it so that it is a “class” less than a generic woman?

What is a generic woman?

of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.

What is the class or kind in general? Woman.

What would Paul have said if he meant all false teachers? Would not the “class” have been the deceived or false teachers?

The complementarian argument has always been that “a woman” is generic thus it is about the woman class thus a universal prohibition. Agreed?

What is it in verse 11 that would make the generic usage about something less than the “woman” class?

For if you get into this arena, you are stuck with all of the ramifications of a generic class of “woman”.

It indeed is waving the red flag to comps and others because that is how a generic woman is taken by definition. Eh? Or olay?

gengwall,

I’m going to step back for a bit and try to pull out all the straw I find suddenly attached to me.

Ah@! No way, don’t leave!

Let’s discuss the meaning of generic woman. K?

No doubt at all, TL, that the local leaders who were to be mature Christians capable of correcting her errors would know what this was all about. But for us, well, we don’t need to know her name. Think what notoriety would follow publishing the name of a deceived person who you are sure will come out of her deception if she was given the opportunity to unlearn the false and learn the truth. When a name is made known like that you can never live down the reputation.

What do these names signify? Judas. Jezebel. Would anyone even want to have a notorious name picked out for them that was listed as a false teacher (but who had been deceived into that position)? I am so glad that the Holy Spirit chose not to name her and that we also have our shame covered as we live as forgiven Christians.

Actually I think that if Paul was intending on giving an answer to the problem by hiding the fact that it was about one woman, we would not have known that it was one woman. It would have been given as generic all the way through if he really was trying to protect her situation from being known. But can we really say that Paul has protected her situation? We can say that Paul has protected her identity. But the fact that he said that she was still in transgression because of her deception lets the cat out of the bag and no putting that cat back in with a subtle switch to generic in verse 12 will do at all.

…and that very real prohibition doesn’t qualify as a “law” since it has no connection to the OT, no connection to God’s prohibitions, and never repeated anywhere. A very odd way to do business to try to keep a person from being singled out but then singling them out anyway by saying “the woman” is still in the transgression and in her deception. If that isn’t singling out a person, honestly I don’t know what is.

The generic application doesn’t seem to fit although we can allow others to keep trying to make it fit. It is part of thinking outside the box so it is an activity that is very useful at least in trying.

TL,

What would be especially odd is to make a generic person the brunt of a very real prohibition.

Just an update on our building project.

The cement walls are up. Today is a holiday in Canada so the workmen are not here today. And it is raining too or we would be outside rearranging some piles in order to clear an area for next phase of building. It’s my day to catch up on ministry things.

gengwall,
You said:

I think you are overly concerned about a supposed connection of the “women” of vs. 10 and a generic woman in vs. 11.

Actually I do see a connection between the two. The godly women of verse 10 would be part of the solution in teaching that is done in verse 11. Their maturity would be used to teach the problem woman when she is brought into the place of submission to learning the truth. The concern that I have is making verses 11 & 12 being about any woman thus having a universal prohibition applied to any woman generically.

There are many stark indicators that paul has changed subjects beyond the obvious change in grammatical number.

However if verses 11 & 12 are about any woman, then this would include the women in verse 10. That would make them not part of the solution to the problem, but they would also be a part of the prohibition. Do you see that?

Just the introduction of authentein alone makes this a very different situation.

The introduction of authentein should limit this to an unusual situation rather than an application to all. The use of a very unusual word seems to take away a universal application. The word is not widely used to make it applicable to any woman.

As we all know, comps make illogical leaps of reading into the text all the time and your explanation for the anarthrous woman in vs. 11 won’t put a stop to that behavior.

I agree with you about those whose mind is already made up. However for those who want to know the truth about the passage, we can reason from the Scriptures with them.

So, your argument has a flavor to it that strikes of fear that it must be your way or egalitarianism can not survive.

That would be overstating my case and that is not what I said. What I did say was more along the line that one is giving them a foothold to use an egal reasoning to push the universality of a specific prohibition. If the reasoning is solid then that is a foothold that is given that is necessary. But if your reasoning has problems, then there is a better solution to the problem of these verses that does not give an opportunity of a universal prohibition in the context.

Put another way, you see a lot of danger in my position which I think simply doesn’t exist.

That is why it is always helpful to work through these issues so that we can see things from each other’s viewpoint even if we still end up disagreeing. Discussion like this helps people not to put their own understanding into another person’s viewpoint thus there will be no misrepresentation.

I see a similar panick in the inter-church creation debate, where young-earth creationists insist that there can be no other interpretation because an old earth would guarentee victory to the evolutionists.

I think that is far too simplistic in representing the concern. The issue is far more about the clarity of God’s word and the acceptance of what God has written in context. I think the same thing is the issue in the women debate. Has God written His words so that they can be understood in the complete context? This is why I have made it a practice not to run away from hard passages but to keep my nose in the midst of the passages until there is an understanding from the context. I don’t believe that God intends to contradict Himself and anything that is contradictory is not His fault but our own mis-understanding.

The fundimental reason why my position doesn’t grant an inch to comps is that I am still arguing for an individual woman in vs. 11, just as you are. Mine is generic to be sure but she does not lose connection to yours, who is the archetype.

I just don’t see that. Arguing for a generic woman means that any woman can fit into that category thus a generic woman is not much different than all women except it is one at a time instead of a group. It still rejects one specific woman alone.

Kristen’s example from the workplace is indeed a great analogy and makes perfet sense to me. I see no reason why Paul and Timothy couldn’t have had a similar dialog.

The problem with Kristen’s example is two fold. First of all it is stated as not singling one woman out but then in verse 14 it is doing just that. Second of all using the phone for private matters while you are being paid to do company matters is not the same as saying one cannot use the phone at all at any time. However verse 12 says that “a woman” is not allowed to teach a man. It doesn’t say that she can’t teach him in church but she can teach him at home. It says that she is not allowed to teach him period. The reason is stated both before and after the prohibition. Before the prohibition it is stated that she needs to learn. After the prohibition the issue of deception is used as a reason for the prohibition, but the fact is that one of the things she is to stop doing is teaching him.

Now if the illustration Kristen used would be that all employees are forbidden to use the phone at any time, then this would affect both the person who is misusing company time as well as those who call out on their breaks. That would lump the offender in with all those who are being respectful. Is Paul really doing that? Is he stopping any woman from teaching men just because one woman was teaching her deception to her husband? I am not persuaded at all that this is Paul’s intention. It is not like him to forbid godly actions because of one person who is doing something wrong. I would like to ask if you have any Biblical precedent for Paul stopping the freedom of any person from doing something because of one person doing wrong? If Paul did that then it could be seen as a precedent to stop any godly woman teaching any man just so that one deceived woman doesn’t think that she is being singled out.

What needs to be established, and what I think is clearly established in the text, is that the topic is false teaching. Once that is accomplished, the separation from vss. 8-10 is complete and there is no threat from a generic woman in vs. 11.

But the problem with making verses 11 & 12 as generic is that false teaching is not identified here. It is not until the issue of a specific woman is identified with the deception of Eve that we see deception. But then we have to ask ourselves why any woman is to be stopped from teaching because someone else is deceived? A generic woman would not be equal to a deceived woman since deception is not generic.

Do you see a threat in the passage that would spoil anything by making the woman of verses 11 & 12 as a specific woman rather than any Pam, Patricia or Mary?

gengwall,

Cheryl – as I said early on my objective isn’t to convince so much as to provide food for thought.

I think it is always valuable to provide food for thought as it stimulates our minds to stretch beyond where we are (stuck). My concern in this one is that if there is no weight of evidence to have Paul go from a generic prohibition to a specific example that gives no background on the specifics, the generic prohibition will be turned around as a universal prohibition against all women’s teaching to men for this is where the comp position gets its universal prohibition from. If Paul isn’t stopping false teaching and the woman’s transgression and deception which is ongoing, the specific example will be seen as a byproduct of what is forbidden for all women. i.e. all women are forbidden to teach men and when one woman doesn’t listen and is teaching her husband, she is sinning. If it opens the way for comps to reaffirm a universal prohibition on all women, then it needs to be especially evaluated to see if it holds weight because I guarantee it will be used against egal women who are sincerely seeking to serve the Lord by using their gift of teaching for the benefit of the body. A generic view of verses 11 & 12 has always been used for a universal prohibition against all women. And if one woman’s transgression (vs 14) is not tied to one woman’s prohibition (vs 12) and the two can be seen as separate instead of tied together in context, then a universal prohibition against all women will be against godly teaching by women instead of dealing with the deception of a particular woman. Therefore testing this view is highly important.

You rightly bring up the issue of the anarthrous noun and its importance. The question is whether we divorce the presence of the definite noun for “the woman” in verse 14 from “a woman” in verses 11 & 12. Why would Paul not use “the woman” in verses 11 & 12 to begin with?

First of all it was not necessary to use the definite article to show that this was a specific person. Timothy was very aware of the sticky situation that he needed Paul’s help on and when Paul went from the plural to the singular and placed a prohibition using the singular, there would have been no doubt in Timothy’s mind what Paul was doing and why.

The next question would be why Paul had to use the definite article in verse 14. How would comps see verse 14 if it was anarthrous? Would all women be set up as having being permanently weak, deceived and sinners by nature while all men would be seen as leaders, strong and unable to be deceived? What do you think?

gengwall,
You said:

Grudem’s examples of God’s supposed subordination do not show subordination at all. They most often show God the mighty warrior coming to struggle at the side of we humans.

Amen!

Craig,
You said:

I thought this was an extaordinary way to try and cling to his interpretation. I must have missed something because the implications are amazing.

I was quite alarmed at how far Grudem and Ware are willing to go to support the subordination of women. When I hear these men teach and preach to pastors who should be equally as shocked to hear the prehuman Word of God subordinated to the point of having less honor, praise and worship and hearing God subordinated to us merely because they are looking for a way to keep the subordination of women within mainstream Christianity, I am appalled at the silence of shepherds who are not speaking out.

He would surely think that sometimes a husband could help his wife. Would this mean that sometimes a husband would then be subordinate to his wife and sometimes a wife may have authority over her husband?

Apparently not. It is only God who is subordinate at times while the husband is giving leadership when his wife needs help. Everything is about male leadership and male superiority even when the wife needs help, but it is not so when God helps us. It totally mind boggles me to think that people swallow this kind of stuff without an understanding how God is being dethroned and the male is elevated in the process of this false doctrine.

Surely he can’t be contadicting himself so clearly. Have I misunderstood something or has he painted himself into a corner?

He is contradicting himself to keep male leadership intact. Men never leave the place of leadership while apparently God does. How sad is that? It makes me upset that the popularity of these men have made their teaching accepted without any apparent contradiction or opposition except from egalitarians. I wonder how far do they need to continue down this road before men wake up and understand the danger of subjecting God to their doctrine of subordination?

Oops! Thanks Craig. I fixed it. Much obliged. And you are right, I am not that much outside of the square!

Thanks a bunch!

gengwall said:

Cheryl and I agree about 99% of this passage but are quibbling over why the definite article was not introduced at the beginning. Neither of our positions alters our egal stance.

I agree! My point is that the definite article in verses 11 & 12 is not needed to make the passage to be about one woman and one situation but that the definite article in verse 14 is clearly used to identify one women with Eve her predecessor. Your position seems to be that “the” separates a specific woman from generic woman, while I believe it separates a specific unnamed woman from Eve rather then letting anyone be confused by thinking that all womankind are a type of Eve, and in the same kind of deception. This view was quite prominent (that all women were deceived) a few hundred years ago.

@227 Kristen,
You asked:

Would Paul really be saying that only those women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples, should be dressing modestly? That only they should be focusing on inner character rather than outward adornment– while those women in the church who are immature Christians are exempt?

I believe that Paul is specifically pointing out the ways that godly women are to show their godliness. While proper dressing can be applicable to all of us, we can let things go with new converts or those who are not even Christians yet. For example if a man thought that the expression of his spiritual maturity was a leather jacket, but he wasn’t spiritual without that leather jacket, then this is where he could have some instruction on the proper way to express his godly maturity.

Remember that the clothing was not immodest as if it is revealing or skimpy clothing. It is way overdone “call attention to me” clothing that seeks to show godliness through stand-out clothing rather than from an inner character. Those who were not yet saved would not have a restriction on their clothing so that they couldn’t come to the gathering with elaborate hairstyles. That would be overlooked for those who are not yet Christians or who may be immature yet in their faith. But those who claim maturity need to know how to express spiritual maturity through ways other than elaborate clothing.

It seems to me that Paul is talking about all the women in the church here, as he was talking about all the men a verse earlier. Just as the men are to “lift holy hands,” the women are to dress modestly.

Paul uses the definite article “the men” and the term “holy” hands is “of persons who live right before God holy, devout, dedicated” from the Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

These too are ones claiming that they are holy, living rightly, setting the example. Paul tells both the men and women who are claiming holiness how to express that maturity outwardly. While there are a lot of things that all can learn here, I do believe that Paul is specifically talking to leadership, both men and women, and not to those who do not yet have a mature Christian lifestyle where they could claim to have “holy” hands.

I’m not sure whether or not Paul is making a correction to the Ephesian church’s behavior or not. I think he’s simply saying, “In order to be a good witness to the surrounding culture, the men should have “holy hands” and the women should have “holy dress.”

I don’t think that Paul is talking about outside of the Christian gatherings. I don’t think he is telling the men to walk down the streets lifting up “holy hands” nor that women cannot wear elaborate dress and elaborate hair styles at any time or any place. But in the family of God that gathers together there is an appropriate way for those who claim godliness to express that godliness. The term for women expressing “godliness” is piety, reverence for God, God-fearing. Both terms used for the men and women are a claim to a strong devout faith.

Then in regards to whether the generic is used in 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 you said:

It could be as you say– but the examples you have given so far– “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” for example– seem to always contain some kind of qualifier: a “who” statement that MAKES the context clear. I agree that possibly Paul was simply referring to this one woman both in verses 11 and 12 and in verse 14– but then (when it comes to verse 11, at least) we lose the strength of “let a woman learn!” as a POLICY.

I understand that this is what complementarians claim Paul is saying – that there is a policy being made here of letting women learn rather than excluding them as the Jews did. The problem with this is that if Paul is talking generically about all women, it would seem that there is a new policy being created as if there has been a policy like the Pharisees who didn’t let women learn. But this has not been the case. Jesus always had female disciples and Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 14 that the spiritual gifts were to be used by all so that all may learn. There was a general acceptance that all disciples learned together and a woman’s learning was never segregated from the men. Paul said nothing in 1 Timothy 2 about anybody stopping women from learning so it doesn’t seem to fit that a new policy is being created that will let women now learn the Scriptures. It is only as a solution to the problem (learning doctrine solves the problem of deception) that letting her learn is emphasized as deception is the very reason for the prohibition that follows.

We also lose the “this is nothing personal, I’m not singling her out” idea that I think may very well be what Paul is saying here.

If that is the case then all women were stopped from teaching because of verse 12 so that no woman would be singled out. I don’t think this works with the complete context of the passage. Complementarians have forced a generic rendering of this passage and this has been the problem. When no difference is seen between the “women” from verse 10 and “a woman” from verse 11, verse 15 cannot make proper sense but becomes a sore thumb force-fit into the passage.

I do think that in verses 14 and 15 Paul is definitely talking about this one woman’s situation, this one woman’s salvation, and this one couple’s need to walk in sanctification.

But how then can one have a specific prohibition to all with one woman’s situation? How does her problem relate to what all women are forbidden from doing?

I hope that makes it clearer why I like Gengwall’s interpretation so much.

Well I am glad for gengwall’s sake that he has a good supporter. He has not convinced me at all because I see way to many inconsistencies and problems with that view. He will have to work out the problems to be convince me that there is more than one way to see this passage.

gengwall, you also said that Paul was only convinced that one woman would be saved (on condition…) and the reason, you said is:

Because there is only one for which Timothy has provided specifics. Others may not have the very same circumstances.

That would be a problem because the only circumstances that are provided for the prohibition are for the generic “woman” situation. What exactly was the prohibition for the specific woman? It isn’t given unless “the woman” is to be seen in verses 11 & 12.

Even with chap 1, Do you believe that any other woman who might fall into transgression in a like manner to this woman will automatically receive salvation regardless of other extenuating circumstances?

I think if we take careful note of the conditions that Paul creates in verse 15, any woman should fall under this “saved..if…” statement. It is the conditional “if” that makes all the difference.

Paul is not proclaiming either a singular salvation or a global salvation. He is simply addressing the one case for which he has all the facts.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. What do you mean that he is not proclaiming a singular salvation that is conditional?

Your interpretation stands on its own. I see no reason to doubt it as a possibility or rebutt it.

Well, again I am not saying that I am infallible and that your version cannot be correct, but I am unconvinced and it seems to me that it has some issues that doesn’t make it seem likely.

My question to you would be, why would Paul have to make a strict prohibition about generic “woman” whom he has little information about their circumstances? And what would the need be to even talk about a specific woman if she fit in with the generic “woman” statements. Wouldn’t Paul have to make a clear statement in verse 15 that “the woman” (not just a generic she) alone will be promised salvation if…? How come no definite article in verse 15 to make it clear that the “she” is absolutely not the generic “woman” from verses 11 & 12?

I believe these kinds of problems are not there in my interpretation of “a woman” of 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 being the same “woman” of verses 14 and verse 15. I also believe that our own interpretation should be held up to inspection and challenge. For if it is truth, it will stand firm. I am certainly willing to listen to your explanation that might make your understanding in a better position of being without problems.

Carry on, my friend!

@226 gengwall,

Thanks for sparring with me! When I questioned you about why there was only one who was said to be still in the transgression if Paul was talking about many who were teaching their husbands false doctrine, you said:

I see no reason to make that leap. Timothy gave only one example. Paul shifts to speaking directly about that one example. Any other women who are still in transgression are still in need of the prohibition, and those that were deceived into that state are due mercy.

I find this unconvincing. If Paul was wanting to make 1 Timothy 2:11-12 generic for all those who were teaching false doctrine to their husbands and he was not talking about one special false teacher and that special circumstance between one couple, then why not carry it through with the generic? After all if this one couple is not special and they are just like all the others, then there is no real reason to pick them out of the crowd is there? By listing only one woman as being in the transgression, what would be the point of that? How then would we know if the others are okay now and not still in their deception, yet they are still not allowed to teach? Only one is still in the transgression, still in the deception, but all cannot teach? It makes the water more muddy as if all women generically can’t teach whether they are still deceived or not. It also doesn’t make the passage flow because “woman” is not of necessity generic to begin with and how would we be sure that the “woman” in verses 11 & 12 cannot be a specific woman? What makes it truly clear that the anarthrous noun in verse 11 & 12 is absolutely not connected to “the woman” of verse 14?

I had said to you:

I think that Timothy is smart enough to take Paul’s way of dealing with the specific case and using that as a template to deal with any further issues that may come up in the future.

You answered:

Really? If Timothy is so smart, why ask Paul at all. It seems to me that a great deal has been said about Timothy’s youth, lack of experience, need for guidance, and need for encouragement. I don’t picture him at all as being able to “take the ball and run with it”.

I think the point that I have been making a lot about Timothy was his youth in his lack of experience not his lack of intelligence. So for Timothy to step into a marriage situation to bypass the woman’s husband would have been a hard thing for him to do. I don’t think that as a mature person spiritually who was given the privilege of being Paul’s representative in Ephesus, that Timothy would miss taking one solution and therefore miss the opportunity to use the courage he received from Paul to help any other similar situations. The fact is that although Timothy was young, he was a mature Christian in knowledge. But his inexperience in how to overstep a wimpy, silent husband and a culture that made what he was instructed to do a no-no made Paul’s instruction that the prohibition was coming from him, a very understandable answer to Timothy’s dilemma. So inexperienced in overcoming cultural barriers, sure. Was he stupid or unable to apply the solution to other problems? Hardly seems possible that such a senseless person would have been in charge of the problems.

More in a bit.

@225 gengwall,
You quoted me and said:

I think I failed to congratulate you on thinking outside the box……

hahaha. Buttering me up before you drop the hammer.

Actually I realized that I was giving special attention to the new people who were thinking outside the box and not giving the proper affirmation to you. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with what you come up with, the fact that you are continually trying to work through these matters and think outside the box is a very commendable thing. For some reason I seem to take you for granted because you have been here longer, but I don’t want to keep doing that. You are greatly appreciated and your ability to think outside the box is awesome! Keep it up.

You made a mistake here. There isn’t an “indefinite” singular. It is just singular. There is no indefinite in the Greek. And the singular can be definite without the definite article. So there isn’t such a change from singular to definite singular since both can (and I believe does) mean the same thing.

LOL – toMAtoe; tomatoe. the point is there is a shift. If you want to call it from “singular” to “definite”, that’s fine with me.

My point is that there is not a shift. A noun can be definite with or without the article. The only way that there would be a shift is if Paul meant “woman” to mean a generic woman and then later in verse 14, he switches to a definite woman. But that hasn’t been proven yet and frankly I am not convinced by your view so I don’t see this as a shift from a generic woman to a definite woman. You have to first prove that there is a shift and then I could agree with you that a second shift occurs.

Is the “correction” that Paul is giving a correction for behavior that is inhibiting the spread of the gospel, or is the correction the proper way to show their godliness through their inner character and not through expensive dresses and jewelry?

The answer to your either/or is “Yes”. The two things are intertwined.

Actually I don’t see where Paul is saying that how expensive a dress a godly woman wears is inhibiting the gospel. Perhaps you could share how you get that from the text.

@224 gengwall,
You said:

In Titus, wives are instructed to philandros their husbands, not agapao. I’m afraid you have fallen into the “rely on the English translation” trap. So actually, my statement is quite true.

You are right. That is my fault. I apologize for translating it in my head to “love”. I blame it on my tired existence as this renovation/addition progresses. I have heard so many people say that the Bible never tells women to love their husbands, that I just grazed over what you were trying to say and thus gave a wrong answer. Please forgive me for that.

Now let me try once again with my brain more alert. While the Bible never directly says that words that wives are to agapao their husbands, yet it also directly says that all of us are to agapao one another. Romans 13:8, John 13:34 are just some examples and Eph 5:2 says that we are to walk in agape. Thus we know for sure that wives are to agapao their husbands because all of us are to agapao each other.

I should add that if we replace “God” with “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” we can get a good idea of whether or not the passage means that. We will get the sense of whether that is what the passage means. So when Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and My Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, we can understand that this is not what He meant. He meant the essence of who God is, but not confusing the persons as all the same as the Son.

Hi Craig,
Thanks for your patience. Our office/studio addition has turned my life upside down right now and likely will stay that way until it is finished.

Your questions are good questions and deserve to be answered.

I may have misunderstood, but someone I think mentioned a bible college lecturer who believed that “God” generally refers to the “Trinity”.
I was wondering this same question about John1:1. How could “the Word” be “with” the Trinity.

When the Bible says “God” we can take that as all of God using the context to set up any limitations. For example if you daughter (if you have one) is “with” the family this evening, we would understand that she is alongside them in fellowship this evening. Yet your daughter is also “family” but the statement is not meant to be taken as if she is “with” herself. We understand that family means all the family and “with” means she is with all excluding herself. Thus John 1:1 with the Word being with God means that He is alongside and in fellowship with the persons who are God excluding Himself since one person is not “with” Himself. So in John 1:1 we would not usually say that the Word is with the Trinity, but that the Word is with God with God here meaning the Father and the Holy Spirit thus showing Him equal in relationship. The context limits the application to two persons as God. The second part of John 1:1 where the Word is said to be God, this part is anarthrous which means that it is without the definite article. This grammar structure shows that the essence of what makes God to be God (His power, His knowledge, etc) is what Jesus has. It does not mean that He is the same person as the Father or the Holy Spirit but He is the same essence and is the same Being as God.

Also in John 4:24 when Jesus says “God is spirit”- Jesus is God and He has a body.

While we can say the Word is God, when we say Jesus is God we need to make clear that He isn’t just God. He is the God-man. When the Word became man, God did not change. God overtook the flesh in indwelling and becoming one of us. So while Jesus the God-man became tired, the essence of who God is does not become tired. It was the flesh alone, not His Spirit that was hungry, tired and was bruised and broken.

I think that the general rule is that the term “God” means all of God unless there is something in the context that would limit the persons. For example if we look at John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus “the Lord of me” and “the God of me”, Thomas recognizes that Jesus is in essence the very being of God – so that he can claim that Jesus is his God. But Thomas is not saying that Jesus is the person of the Father or the person of the Holy Spirit. But the term is important because it is the reason for his worship of Jesus as God. All of who God is, is in Jesus who was standing there in the flesh.

John 20:28 (NAS) Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

How I would describe this would be to say that Jesus is the “being” of God – the “essence” of God. The Father is also the “being” and “essence” of God, as well as the Holy Spirit is also the “being” and “essence” of God. Thomas would be describing the nature of God rather than how many persons are God. Thomas was not saying that Jesus is the Trinity, but that He has the very nature of God, the being of God, residing in His flesh as the God-man.

I think that most other references to God would be the entire persons of God and His entire nature.

I hope this helps a little.

@208 gengwall,
You said:

Keep in mind that wives are also never instructed in scripture to agape their husbands, yet we know they should and do.

Actually that is a tradition that has been circulating in the church but it isn’t true.

Paul instructed through Titus:

Titus 2:4 (NAS)
4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,

I do agree with everything else that you say about mutual submission and a general command to love one another.

@207 gengwall

I think I failed to congratulate you on thinking outside the box. Even if your view does not agree with mine, the fact that you are thinking for yourself and considering all the options is a wonderful and commendable thing. Good going!

You said:

There are two things we know for sure. One is that there is a distinct and intentional change from plural to singular between vss. 10 and 11. But two, there is also a distinct (and also intentional???) change from indefinite singular to definite singular between vss. 12 and 14. As we know, the indefinite singular can refer to a generic. It is not a “set” of deceived women per se, but a single generic woman.

You made a mistake here. There isn’t an “indefinite” singular. It is just singular. There is no indefinite in the Greek. And the singular can be definite without the definite article. So there isn’t such a change from singular to definite singular since both can (and I believe does) mean the same thing.

So let’s have a closer look at the changes within the text. Paul goes from plural to singular. Is the plural generic for all women in verse 10?

1 Timothy 2:10 (NAS)
10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

This is a statement about all women “who are making a claim to godliness”. It appears that these are women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples of the faith.

The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel.

I am not sure where you are getting this from other then this is typically what comp teachers say. Is the “correction” that Paul is giving a correction for behavior that is inhibiting the spread of the gospel, or is the correction the proper way to show their godliness through their inner character and not through expensive dresses and jewelry?

Vs. 11 has nothing to do with that at all. Verse 10 is a wrap up; vs. 11 is a beginning.

I agree. Verse 10 is about a general “kind” that are claiming godliness and verse 11 is about a woman who has a need to become a disciple and to learn from instruction.

Is verses 11 & 12 about a general “kind” of woman who is deceived and who needs to stop teaching her husband her errors and who needs to learn while verse 14 is about a specific woman who is called “the woman”? This would seem a bit odd if we consider that only one is said to be still in the transgression and results of it. Are we to think that there could be many women who are teaching their husbands false doctrine and none of the husbands are correcting them yet none of them are still in the transgression but one? If that would be the case, then there would be no reason for a generic example needed. I think that Timothy is smart enough to take Paul’s way of dealing with the specific case and using that as a template to deal with any further issues that may come up in the future.

It would also seem odd if there were potential on-going problems with many women teaching false doctrine to their husbands and Paul is only convinced that one can be saved (verse 15). After all he made a huge point in chapter one that one who has been deceived and acted ignorantly with unbelief could obtain mercy. Why would Paul then say that only one woman who was doing what lots of others were doing in Ephesus would obtain mercy? Would it not also be true that all of those who have been deceived would be eligible for mercy from God if they all submitted to learning the truth, and all were helped with a mentor who would walk alongside them in staying in the truth, staying true to a love for God and living a holy life for God by staying away from the error?

If Paul is indeed giving this example so that we can be sure that God has not rejected those who are lost in the cults and in aberrant movements, then wouldn’t it be contradictory of Paul to turn around and say that we can ignore some because we can judge some who have been deceived as unworthy to receive mercy? I just don’t think that fits.

So we are back to why did Paul use the singular in verses 11 & 12 without the definite article and then choose to use the definite article in verse 14? Here is what I think. I believe that his pattern has been to not use the definite article when the context is clear to the audience that a specific person is in mind. When Paul went from the plural to the singular, he made a switch to those who are going to be part of the solution (those who claim godliness) to the problem teacher who needs teaching herself. There is no doubt in my mind that Timothy knew exactly who this teacher was that he was to stop from teaching. However there is a complication in verse 14 that seems to require a definite article.

In verse 13 Paul has named Eve in connection to Adam. He does this because the problem in the garden directly correlates to the problem in Ephesus with this one woman. But Paul is now going to add the woman into the equation showing Timothy that the seriousness of her situation is just like what was going on with Eve. So where we would expect Paul to use Eve with Adam in verse 14, here Paul switches from the original problem that existed in now dead people, as an overlay to the current problem with an alive person. In order to make sure that Timothy understands the direct connection and that he isn’t talking about Eve but the specific woman, he contrasts the dead with the living by specifically identifying her as “the” woman and then uses grammar that shows that the effects of her transgression are on-going.

So I think that the unexpected use of the definite article is the area that we should concentrate on and why Paul used the definite article when he has in the past used no article when he was identifying a specific person.

Lastly I think that if “woman” of verse 12 was not a specific woman that was doing a specific thing with a specific man then Paul’s command to Timothy had no real teeth since it would be an “if” command instead of a definite command to do something. In other words if Paul was using generic terms like any woman who is deceived needs to learn and to stop teaching her husband, the question would be why Paul would give a command regarding potentially deceived women. It wasn’t his modus operandi to give out commands for “what if’s”. His commands seem to be about specifics.

Paul also didn’t give up on people seeing them as unable to be saved very easily. He did treat the deceivers differently than the deceived but the deceivers were not turned over to the church to be taught. They were turned over to satan and it was the deceived who were turned over to the church to be taught.

So if your alternate suggestion is true, one would have to explain

1. Why would Paul command regarding possible scenarios?

2. Was “the woman” from verse 14 & 15 also to be commanded not to teach her husband? How could we be sure if verse 12 was only about “if” situations?

3. Why would there not be a generic “woman” who was still in the transgression and the results of that transgression in verse 14? Why would Paul seem to teach that any woman could be deceived, but it is only “one” woman who is still in the transgression?

4. Why would Paul who was confident that those who were deceived in unbelief be eligible for mercy turn around and deny that all but one was eligible for mercy by making the “she” of verse 15 about only one woman?

I think that making the woman of verses 11 & 12 to be any woman who is deceived takes the punch out of Paul’s command and makes the passage less clear and with irreconcilable problems about who can be saved. This is why I hold to the thought that the singular is a consistent change to a specific example of one particular woman and one particular man. It just fits the verses without the problems that making a generic woman out of “she” and then changing the “she” in verse 15 to be specific.

And if the “she” in verse 15 is the specific woman of verse 14 PLUS the unspecified generic woman of verses 11 & 12, the “they” of verse 15 becomes very confusing. We can make “they” the specific woman of verse 14, but who would “they” be that must walk with her to help to assure her salvation? “The” woman of verse 15 isn’t connected to “the” man and we can’t assume that “any” woman who is a false, deceived teacher has a husband who is a believer. But if verses 11 & 12 are about one woman and one man, then the example that Paul gives of the very first husband and wife in the garden, and the fact that it is only “she” whose salvation is in question, shows that this one couple are exactly like Adam and Eve. She is deceived. He is silent. She is in need of true knowledge. He has the truth and has done nothing with it.

@205 Holly,
You said:

it seems that a simple “husband submit to your wives as unto the Lord” would have saved a lot of women (and men because of their greater burden of “responsibility” than was necessary) a lot of pain and suffering over the years.

Are you sure? It seems to me that with the direct command for husbands to give up themselves for their wives still allowed men to hold to their male tradition, if the Bible would have directly said what you quoted above, the additional command would have been bypassed in the same way. Male privilege does not get laid at the feet of Jesus easily. Men need to be willing to have a heart change that goes against their fleshly desires and against the culture and against tradition. That is no small feat.

I changed the answers to remove the real one on the Mordecai/Esther question. This way it will be more apparent whether people have been fooled by the tradition that says that Mordecai was Esther’s uncle.

It reminds me how easy it is to believe the tradition that said that Eve lied before she ate the forbidden fruit. How many people have been deceived by a prejudice against women without even understanding that deception? I just praise God that so many men that I have shared the “Eve lied” tradition with and then showed how that tradition is faulty, have see the faulty tradition fall from testing it with the Scriptures. Tradition must be tested and what holds to Scripture can be kept. But faulty tradition should have its place in the spiritual garbage can where it belongs.

It sounds to me like Esther was collected along with other pretty girls. I don’t hear a choice in the account. Yet it is amazing that God can bring good out of bad kind of like what happened to Joseph being sold into slavery. God over saw the events so that even in the anger of Joseph’s brothers and even in the male system that could take over the bodies of beautiful females at will, God is still able to be in control of bringing His will through it all.