Cheryl Schatz

It goes to show that someone as careful as I am can be duped into believing what I was taught as tradition. I have read Esther many times and still didn’t read it the way it was written. I still read “uncle Mordecai”.

If you weren’t taught this tradition, then you have one less tradition to unlearn 😉

My Bible in the notes section says that he was her uncle and everyone in our church when asked this question said “uncle” including me. This is what I was taught and so was everyone else in our church including our pastor.

As far as the adoption, he was her adopted father, not her original or real father.

@207 gengwall,
You said:

I am not taking vs. 11 to be a plural special group of women but as a singular generic example of “the woman”.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Timothy was to understand Paul in verse 11 that “any woman” who is deceived is to submit to learn? And in verse 12 “any woman” who is teaching and “authentein” her husband, Timothy is to stop (any women who is doing that). And that a specific woman is not in view until verse 14?

“Authentein” is a very rare word and with a specific meaning to Timothy. Are you saying that there would be many more women who were doing this to their husbands? If there are many more potential women who are doing the same thing, would there be women in other churches practicing “authentein” or this is an Ephesian anomaly?

If this is what you are saying, then is there anyone in particular that Timothy is to stop from teaching per verse 12 or is this just in case there is anyone like this, this is what you are to do?

If verse 11 is generic, would it not have been natural for Paul to continue with the term “women” instead of “woman”? And if verse 11 and 12 are generic “woman” and not a specific woman, then is the “they” of verse 15 also generic women who are deceived?

I can’t do anything more than this tonight as my mind is totally gone and I am exhausted. I hope that what I have written and my questions make sense.

To those who are posting graphic and disturbing comments off topic from the issue of women in ministry and who have been warned before not to do this, you will not have your comments go through. Please read my disclaimer tab at the top and follow the rules if you want any of your comments to show up. This is my last warning or I will permanently ban these comments so that they won’t even come through to me.

Kristen,
That is a good comment as well and one that goes along with my next post that I am working on right now.

Holly,
The last thing you asked is:

Also, why do you think the use of the word “authentein” is used exclusively in this husband/wife relationship concerning false teaching and not used in other portions of Scripture where false teaching is also being addressed? Surely a false teacher in any situation would be practicing spiritual “authentein” over their listeners and would require the same sinister term for this type of authority that Paul used in 1 Tim 2.

I think it has to do with the tightness of the relationship. Also “authentein” is a very unusual word and would not work well with books written for the average Christian congregation. But in 1 Timothy Paul is writing to his close companion who was on an apostolic mission representing Paul at his request. It was a personal letter written from one friend to another with both of them understanding what kind of problems were in the church. The term was an appropriate “personal” term knowing that Timothy would understand him and the message Paul was trying to get across to Timothy. But if this extremely seldom-used word would have appeared in a letter written to the first century Christian congregation, it likely would have caused more confusion than understanding. Therefore its use would only be appropriate to one who had understanding of Paul’s communication.

I hope this helps!

Holly,
You also said:

It would seem to me that the natural inclination of man “to rule over” his wife since the fall would mean that men in general would be the ones that need the clear cut directive to be in submission to his wife rather than the other way around. Why do you think that this is not the case?

Submission is not as strong a concept as telling a man to give up completely of himself for his wife even sacrificing himself to the point of dying for her. That kind of sacrifice is more than submission and is more of an opposite of dominating rule than submission is.

Holly,
You said:

I realise that in Eph 5 all Christians are taught to be in submission to one another which would include a husband and wife relationship, but I still wonder how come it is that there are at least two places where a wife is directly told to be in submission, or obedience, to her husband, while there is never the same clear-cut directive for a husband to be in submission to, or obedient to, his wife?

I believe that Christianity freed these women from the cultural mandate to obey their husbands with their husbands as masters. However in Christianity our character is to be modeled after Christ so submission with a willing spirit in love is the Christ-like way. This is unlike the cultural obedience that was more slave-like than anything. But to women who are freed from the oppression of male-dominated mastery, they may not feel like they want to act in submission to their husbands.

I believe that the Bible stresses submission to women in marriage since it would be easy for women to think that they are to submit to the body but don’t have to submit to their husbands since they are now free. Free women need to be reminded that they are slaves to Christ and the highest form of acting out that position is through submission in love even to their former husband-masters. Think about one of these women who has received freedom in Christ. She knows that her husband is not to be her boss or her master as she has one Master – the Lord Jesus. With that new found freedom, how easy is it to accept submission to her husband as a Christian? If the Bible didn’t stress her submission, I think these women would believe that there was no need for submission in marriage. And because many women were abused with the absolute domination of their husbands, submission would be an area of weakness for them after experiencing freedom in Christ. Because of this, submission for wives would be a concept to remind women of their obligation in Christ.

Also the Bible shows the area of weakness for husbands. Giving up their selfish lifestyles by putting their wive’s needs and her well-being first would not be natural for a husband in that culture. Husbands reminded to act our their Christianity in a way that they were not naturally inclined before coming to Christ. That culture raised naturally selfish males and the Bible deals with this by telling husbands to act like Christ in giving up of themselves fully for their wives. This is not a weak area for a woman since as a mother she is used to giving up of her own needs for her family. But it is a weak area for a man that makes the instruction of sacrifice especially needed for him.

Lydia, I would suspect you are right. Perhaps another statement could be made in rebuke if CBMW does not respond to this one. A rebuke is not wrong when an organization has done things that are harming the church.

Craig,
I have struggled with the issue of the serpent and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both seem to be “bad” yet we know that all that God created was “good”. How do we reconcile this?

I do believe that Adam named the serpent and the Bible says that the serpent was subtle. I am going by memory here as my Bible program isn’t yet open. It is a possibility that God created a creature that was normal and after God created it, satan entered into him and he started talking and then Adam named him knowing that he was different than all the other animals. I believe that Adam was aware of a difference, but I do believe that the key reason that Adam was not deceived was because of his knowledge of God and God as creator.

As far as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this tree had no seed bearing fruit, therefore no life in its fruit. It also had an effect of poison since it was not good for food. Since all that God makes is good and the good is not distorted until after the fall when God curses it, I wonder if this tree was not a “plant” by satan. Since Adam was there when the garden was planted by God, he may have seen the tree that was put there by satan. The Bible doesn’t tell us for sure, but we can know some things by knowing what can’t be true.

We know that all that God does is good. All fruit trees with seed were given to Adam and Eve and they were good. The only tree that was not good for food was the ONE tree. Did God create that tree? If so why didn’t it have life in it?

What do we know about the serpent? We know that it was different than all the other animals. Why is that? Is it because satan had permission to enter this one animal and use it for his own means? I don’t see how Adam would not have known that, but it is clear to me that he knew it was different than the rest as more subtle.

What we do know is that Adam was not deceived. He was not deceived by the tree or the serpent or by satan.

You are welcome. I love to help anytime I am able! 😉

Craig,
Looks like you commented again while I was responding to your first comment. Good work! It just needs a little fine tuning.

Timothy visits Bill and Betty Permagos from the congregation at Ephesus.

Great names! Made me laugh out loud.

Timothy: ” I have just received news from the Apostle Paul and he has mentioned some things that are particularly important to the both of you.
(Looking at Betty) You have been teaching and exercising authority over Bill, teaching him things that are contrary to the true Christian faith. Paul says he does not permit this, and says that you need to learn the Christian faith in quietness and full submission.

Slight change in the word to Betty. “You have been teaching and practicing authentein a thing which Paul never allows a believer to do to another person. Paul has written that you must stop this and submit to the truth by laying aside your teaching and learn the full truth of God. Paul says that you are to do this quietly just like any other rabbinical student and with full submission to your husband’s help in the faith.”

(Looking at Bill) Paul does not permit Betty to teach or to have authority over you.

Since authentein is not the Greek word for God-given authority, I typically just keep the word in tact showing that it is an ungodly, not a godly activity that is being restrained.

Don’t just stand there and do nothing, because, Adam was formed first, then Eve. This gave him wonderful knowledge and meant that he wasn’t deceived, but he remained silent. He didn’t do anything to help. Don’t be like Adam.

Good! I would just add that knowledge without using it to benefit others will cause us to walk in selfishness. It isn’t God’s way. To those whom much is given, much is required. His knowledge is required to help his wife.

(Looking at Betty) Eve was formed after Adam, and had less knowledge, and just like her you are deceived and have become a sinner. But you will be saved through Jesus if
(Looking at both Bill and Betty) you both continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

Another good job! I would just add that “You will be saved through the fruit of God’s mercy that came through the first deceived woman if you will submit yourself to Jesus as your husband has and learn to love God, continue in the real truth and stay away from authentein and false knowledge that takes one away from the truth.

But then I am the wordy one. You were more concise. Kudos!

Craig,
You said:

1. v 12 seems to read primarily as a prohibition for the wife, rather than a prohibition on the husband’s silence.

Correct.

2. v14b doesn’t refer to Eve so the argument from Adam and Eve must come primarily from Adam.

However verse 13 does refer to Eve in conjunction with Adam and the comparison here is one who is deceived to one who is not deceived.

Since Paul is referring back to the Biblical account of the fall we must ask what was God’s “take” on the issue of Adam’s non-deception? Was it a good report or a bad report? We will find the answer in Genesis 3:17.

So I thought I would try relating Adam to the prohibition on the wife (rather than relating Adam to the husband and Eve to the wife as is usually done). I thought it may be possible that Paul was just appealing to the fact that Adam learned and therefore wasn’t deceived, rather than looking at the terrible thing Adam did with his lack of deception.

Good for you for thinking outside the box! That is a valiant way to try to work through the passage. The question though at the end of the day will be what is Paul’s “take” on Adam? Is it a good review or a bad review? What is the evidence?

We know that Adam was taken the blame for the entire fall and this is evident through the writings of Paul, agreed? Would Paul now give Adam a break and commend him on his knowledge?

The Scripture shows us that there is such a thing as a dead faith. Faith that is “dead” is faith that has no practical evidence so that what is claimed is unfruitful. If we put Adam to the test, would we not have to say that his knowledge was a “dead” knowledge since he did not take it out of its sheaf and use it as a sword to fight the enemy?

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1 that he used to be a violent man, a persecutor and a blasphemer but he did this ignorantly in unbelief. Would Adam now be given mercy and be considered acting ignorantly in unbelief so that he is now set up by Paul as the good example while his deceived wife is set up as the bad example? Think this one through because it is quite important to Paul’s point. Is this really what Paul is saying? How could we know for sure?

Then look at verse 15. Is there something that is set up for the man that must change from what he is doing now? If he is the good example like Adam, then why must he do something different?

I think you are correct and it is probably a silly idea. If Paul wanted to find an example of non deception through learning Adam would probably be the last one to pick. Oh well… I’ll keep trying.

No, no, no! It isn’t a silly idea. This is the way that we think these things through. The more you practice to pick these Scriptures apart and look at them from every possible angle, the more your eyes will be opened to what God wants to say through the text. These are very hard passages. They will take thinking like you are doing to work through them. And when you are done looking at all the angles, you will know that you know what isn’t the truth and often just by a process of elimination, you will find what is remaining is the truth.

Keep up the good work! I love to see independent thinking and reasoning through the Scriptures. When you continue to practice this testing everything by asking who, what, where, when and why, you are going to be able to understand these hard passages for yourself.

@181 Kay,
You said:

The thing I see is that if the false doctrine Paul was refuting was gnostisim (Eve worshipped as a perfect, spirit being, Adam’s creator) or Artemis worship, then he may be using this in a two-fold fashion – reminding the reader that Eve was not perfect, but rather the one deceived…while Adam was not deceived.

Cheryl, your thoughts?

Paul does give us a little idea of what the false teaching was that had permeated Ephesus. He said that they were “strange doctrines” which means that they were not consistent with the gospel. There were also myths and endless genealogies and a teaching relying on the law.

What we would need to do is to decide whether the example of Adam and Eve was meant to show the seriousness of the silence of one man on his wife’s error or whether the naming of Adam and Eve had anything to do with the actual false doctrine.

It is my belief that the mention of Adam and Eve had nothing to do with the actual kind of false doctrine that was being taught, but was placing a historical event of the first deception and the first silence alongside the problem with this one woman.

While Paul could have called her “a person” instead of “a woman” thus hiding her identity as a female, I believe that it was intentional to reveal that she was a woman because the parallel problem in the garden showed the opportunity for God to bring His good out of what the enemy meant for evil.

~One woman was deceived in the garden and her husband, the undeceived person remained silent.

~One woman was deceived in Ephesus and her husband, the undeceived person remained silent.

~God brought mercy to Eve because of her deception and unbelief parallels in chapter 1 to God bringing mercy to Paul because of his deception and unbelief and this parallels to Paul being sure that God will bring mercy to the Ephesian woman because of her unbelief and deception.

~The first deception resulted in the deceiver being destroyed through the woman’s seed.

~The deception in Ephesus will result in the deceived woman being saved through the seed of the first deceived woman.

~God brings justice to the serpent who is the deceiver. At the same time God brings mercy to the deceived.

~The story of Adam and Eve is used to parallel the plight of the deceived rather than a connection to the “kind” of deception. Eve’s status is not elevated as a source of Adam (a myth), but as the example of the mercy of God brought through the victim of the deceiver.

With this understanding it doesn’t really matter what the deception was that had caught the woman. What matters is that she has the opportunity to receive mercy just like the very first deceived woman received mercy and just like Paul received mercy. And it is an example of once again where what the enemy meant for harm is turned around by God for good. It is a beautiful story of redemption from deception.

@169 Kristen,
You said:

Also, I read not long ago a scholarly essay about how the words “teach” and “domineer” were constructed grammatically so that they were meant to work together, as in “I am not permitting a woman to teach in such a way as to domineer over a man.”

Both verbs have the same weight just as both verbs in Revelation 2:20 have the same weight. Here Jesus said:

Revelation 2:20 (NAS) ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

“Teaches and leads” is akin to “teach and authentein”. Both have one word that normally has a good meaning – “teach” and both have a word that has a negative history. “Leads” in the Greek means “lead astray” or “deceive”. “Authentein” is never listed as a righteous trait and it is never commanded of a leader to do to the congregation. In fact because it is only listed one time in the whole Bible, authentein only has the meaning of what not to do in the Scriptures.

So in Revelation we know that Jezebel is teaching error because the result is that God’s servants are lead astray. And in 1 Timothy 2:12 we know that the woman is teaching error because the teaching results in something that is forbidden. Good teachings are never forbidden in the Scriptures.

@168 gengwall,

You said:

But I don’t think we need to turn “a woman” in verse 11 into the specific woman of vs. 14. What I mean is that the vs. 11 woman can be a generic example. Now, comps say that as well. But they want to make her a generic example of ALL women, or even worse, all Christian women in the worship service. It is clear, though, from the text, that she is a generic example of a specific kind of woman – a deceived false teacher who is exercising violent domineering over her husband and whose potential salvation is in the future. It is unimaginable that this kind of woman represents the entire female population of the Body.

I very much agree with the last part of this paragraph, but I have a different view from the first part. First of all I need to say that what you believe is possible from the text. And I could be wrong in what I believe. However if verse 11 is about general women who are deceived, then we would have a shift from general to specific in verse 12 without any signal of the shift. Or perhaps I just don’t understand what you are saying and I can grant that as a possibility.

In verse verse 9 Timothy is talking about women in general and he uses the plural. What would make verse 11 to be about a certain group of women in general rather than about all women or about one woman? There is no hint found in verse 11 that Paul is talking about deception or that the generic “woman” is about a class of people. We don’t understand that deception is the problem until Paul stops the teaching in verse 12.

If verse 11 is about a special kind of woman as representative of all deceived women, what Paul could have done to make this clear is to keep the general term “women” and then add something for us to know that it was the class of deceived women in general that need to learn.

Then when we get to verse 12 we would have the same term “woman” now as a specific woman without any hint that Paul has just gone from a generic special group to a specific woman. At least when he went from plural to singular we knew that there was a change. I certainly could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we took verse 11 as a special group of women then we would have to take verse 12 as a special group of women too. That would complicate the “a man” to another special group of men and the “she” and “they” in verse 15 would now be, she = a special group of women (thus generic plural) and they = ? (Perhaps a special group of women plus a special group of men or only just a special group of men or ???) Looking at it this way seems to muddle everything up and makes the passage as if it is Paul’s attempt to confuse us.

In my mind the only way that verse 11 could be about a special group of deceived women would be that verse 12 would be the same group. It would seem odd for Paul to change from the generic plural to a generic singular and then to a specific singular grammar. The switch from generic plural to singular is well documented. And the switch happens in verse 11 and not in verse 12. If Paul had in mind a specific woman in verse 12, why would he call all deceived women “she” in verse 11? And what exactly would alert us to a different usage for “she” in verse 11 from “she” in verse 12?

I think the lesson that we can learn from what Paul writes to Timothy is about how deceived “people” come out of their deception. I don’t think that Paul is honing in on a small group of deceived “women” here other than one deceived woman. I think that if you go with generic language for verse 11 you open up a whole other problem. How can we know for sure that “she” in verse 12 is a specific woman if “she” in verse 11 is not?

In coming to this passage I want to take the simplicity of the passage as best as I can because I sincerely believe that the passage was meant to be understood. I don’t think that taking “she” as meaning two different things in two verses without a signal of the change of meaning would be the simple way of understanding the passage. So while I agree with your basic application of the passage, I have to take a different view of verse 11.

I believe that verse 11 is about one woman who was a problem and that Paul as a positive follower of Christ is so sure of her eventual salvation that he gives the solution before he gives the problem.

If I am wrong, I am open to hearing another side that will make the passage clear. In any challenge I will want to know why I should believe that Paul meant a generic group in verse 11 without identifying which “group” he was referring to and why he changed again to a single person in verse 12 without letting us know by a grammar change?

If I have missed something, fire away. This is great iron sharpening iron stuff and I LOVE discussing the Scriptures this way!

@139 Craig,
You said:

Next question- I only just thought of this one now.
1 Tim 2:11 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”
1 Tim 2:12a “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man”
1 Tim 2:12b “She must be silent.” (NIV)
Your view Cheryl is that 1 Tim 2:12a is referring to a particular wife and husband (in the home).
I just wanted to check whether you think that v 11, 12b also refer to just this wife and husband at home? (Or do v11, 12b refer to what should occur in the church meeting?)

I believe that the change of grammar from plural to singular shifts from the general to the specific that starts in verse 11 is in reference to a specific woman. Verse 11 would be about her learning as a normal student in the congregation. Thus the answer is listed before the problem is even brought up.

More about this in a moment.

I will have to finish my responses tomorrow. Good night all.

@136 TL,
Great answer to Holly. I too like to check out lots of lexicons and I like Scott and Liddell for the same reason that you like it.

to continue, Kristen asked:

Another question is, why did God allow such a personal letter from Paul to Timothy, including “inside” references to people only they would understand about, to become canon? I’m reading a book on the history of women in the church, and apparently this passage has been misunderstood almost since Paul wrote it, as a prohibition on all women teaching all men. It’s puzzling to me.

I believe that God allowed this because there is so much that we can learn through this situation. I praise God that He has kept the names of people who were deceived from being recorded for all of church history. We also learn that deceived people are still capable of being saved and that Jesus died for even them. In fact there are so many things in this letter that I hardly know where to start. Another very important thing is that Paul showed us in 1 Timothy 1 that God gives mercy to those who have been deceived and that Paul himself had received mercy having been in the same position.

Paul was a person who has often been misunderstood, but he is an extremely deep person so that when we come to understand him, there is an amazing amount of things that we can learn from him if we work hard in the Scriptures. I am glad that there are Scriptures that are not just “milk” but real meat.

I also think that our prejudices have kept us from understanding Paul but God has picked this time to bring us to the point that we can understand Paul with the amount of Biblical tools that are available to the common person that were not readily available years ago. I believe it is in God’s timing for Paul to be understood.

@163 Kristen,
You said:

But I still have some questions. First, are there any articles in Koine Greek equivalent to the English “this” or “that”?

Yes. Houtos means this and you can find this word in Acts 6:13:

Acts 6:13 (NAS) They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law;

Here it is a demonstrative pronoun.

In other words, I have had trouble believing that Paul would say simply “woman” (which is translated “a woman”) when what he meant was “that woman.”

It isn’t necessary in Greek to say “this” woman or “that” woman. In Acts 6:13 the demonstrative pronoun was used to identify which man was the culprit and their anger also was a reason to use the term “this man”. But Paul is not standing beside the woman to say “this woman” as if there were many options. Timothy did not need Paul to name her, nor did he need Paul to say “this” woman, not “that” one. The problem woman teacher was a clearly identifiable issue to both of them.

Here is another case where Paul identifies a specific man without saying “the man” or “this man”:

2 Corinthians 12:2 (NAS) I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

Most interpret this as Paul as the unidentified “man”. The Greek term is anthropos which means person or it can mean a generic man. But in this passage we can understand that Paul isn’t saying that any man was caught into heaven. It was a specific man but Paul did not want to name him and most people that he didn’t name him because it was Paul himself. If Paul isn’t going to identify himself, and he wants the “man” to remain unnamed, then he isn’t going to say, I know “this” man in Christ…

In English, we can say “a woman” can or can’t do something, and mean it collectively, even though the construction is singular. It is my understanding that this can also occur in ancient Greek– which is the source of my reservations. Generally when we mean a specific unnamed person, we say “this person” not “a person.”

A person without the definite article in Greek can mean a generic person or a specific person. It depends on the context.

But if the Greek doesn’t have a way to say “this person” or “that person,” that would make sense.

It does have the word for “this” but not only is it not necessary, but it would be used in person, not so much in writing. Timothy for sure knew who she was.

I know you mentioned that in 1 Cor 5, Paul says “a man has his father’s wife,” and is referring to a specific man– but in the Greek, the word “man” does not appear in this passage. The phrase is not “aner has his father’s wife,” but actually says “someone has his father’s wife.” So I’m wondering if anywhere else in the New Testament, the word “man” or “woman” by itself can be used to refer to a specific man or woman when the context does not make it clear.

In 2 Cor 12:2 that was given above, the “person” or “a man” is on the same level as 1 Timothy 2:12. In the Timothy passage, we can know that the woman is a specific woman because of the specific grammar in verses 14 & 15. In the 2 Cor. 12:2 passage, we can know it is a specific man because Paul says in verse 5 that he is boasting on behalf of that man.

Notice also in this passage that the terms 2 Cor. 12:2, 3, 5 “such a man” is used three times. This is the same term as 1 Cor 5:1.

More to come….

@165 Craig,
You said,

I have read things like “the situation between this husband and wife is just like an Adam and Eve situation”. Just clarifying in what way the situation is the same.
In mentioning Adam and Eve Paul is NOT (emphasis, not shouting) saying
“This woman shouldn’t teach because Eve taught Adam and this caused the fall.” In fact, Eve didn’t teach Adam at all in Gen 3:1-6.

Excellent point and good way to look at the passage from another angle!

Paul is also NOT saying
“This woman shouldn’t exercise authority over her husband because this is what Eve did and this caused the fall”. In fact Eve did not exercise authority over Adam at all in Gen 3:1-6.

This is exactly how I started the process of figuring these passages out. It is very helpful to look at what the passage DOES say, but it is also very educational to see what the passage is not saying. Good job!

Paul is not referring to Adam and Eve in relation to the teaching or exercising authority of v12, but rather the need for learning v11 to prevent deception.
Is this the same or different to what you are saying?

Absolutely and an A+ to you! Correct doctrine is not only the antidote for deception but it is preventative medicine.

@164 Craig,
You said:

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this blog about how bad Adam was (treachery, rebellion) and how good Eve was (not rebellious, just deceived). This may well be true, but I wonder whether that may not be what Paul is emphasizing here. He seems to be using Adam as a positive example, not a negative one.

My question is, how can Adam be a positive example when he was not deceived, yet his silence left the woman in her deception? Is it possible that we have seen Adam as a positive example because we have seen the passage with a bias towards the male?

He seems to be saying “this deceived woman needs to learn (v11,12), because Adam was formed first (v13)

It isn’t the learning that is because Adam was formed first. Rather the prohibition is because Adam was formed first and was not deceived.

You see, there would not be a need for the prohibition if the one who was not deceived was speaking out and doing something. The fact that the situation is akin to the first non-deception vs deception in the garden is the very reason why Paul is telling Timothy to do something. Adam was silent and the husband in Ephesus is silent.

(and thus learned a lot- seeing God at work in creation, naming the animals etc) and so was not deceived (v14a). This lack of deception is a good thing.

It is a good thing if it is being used to benefit those who need the knowledge. Is it truly a good thing if one sees the enemy coming and says nothing? If one is a watchman on the wall and fails to warn the city, will one get a pat on the back for seeing the enemy? Or does the good (seeing the enemy) become treachery when it is not used to warn the innocent?

The woman needs to learn doctrine just like Adam did so that she won’t be deceived.
Is this the same or different to what you are saying?

She does need to learn doctrine, that is for sure. For correct Biblical doctrine that is held onto and believed will protect one from the enemy. But the problem with the woman at Ephesus is two-fold. She not only needs to learn the truth, but she needs to let go of the error. It is very difficult for one to have one’s eyes opened when one sincerely believes the lie. I know this because my ministry has focused for years on those who have been deceived by the lie in the cults. Those who are caught in the cults do not come out readily or easily. Their deception is firmly ingrained in their soul and they truly believe the lie and will fight like crazy not to have the lie exposed. The fact is that they need help. Rarely do they get out without help. And the woman in Ephesus will not get out without help. If her husband keeps quiet and does not expose her error, she will continue to believe that she has the truth and will trust her husband’s silence. When he speaks out and walks with her to get her help, she is on her way to being freed from the snare of the devil.

Holly,
I forgot to answer this question of yours:

Why is it do you think, that there is no same directive for the men to be “obedient to their own wives” if all things are “fair and equal” with husbands having no “authority” within a marriage relationship?

Husbands just like everyone else are told to be in subjection of “one to another” in Eph. 5:21. Wives are told to be in service and to receive service from their husbands, but they are never told to follow their husbands in obedience. Also they are never told to submit to their husband’s authority. Their submission is to a person, not to an authority. The Scriptures never once give the husband an authority over his wife. We need to ask ourselves why? We believe that the reason is that no authority of husband over wife exists and was never set up that way “in the beginning” nor is it mandated in the New Testament. Rather we are joint heirs, not hierarchical authorities. A hierarchical authority demands obedience and leaves out full submission in love, service and bonding in a one-flesh union. Submission is give and take. Hierarchy is unilateral authority with the one under the authority left with a child-like or slave-like inability to be anything other than a follower. But women are not set up as followers but as mature watchers of their home, responsible to assign duties to both children and maids so that what is under their authority will prosper and be cared for.

There is one difference in the hierarchical model of marriage than what is set up for children and slaves. Children grow up and mature away from the authority. Slaves can buy their freedom or have other people buy freedom for them to be mature citizens with their own responsibilities. But wives in the hierarchy model never “grow up”, “mature” or have their freedom “bought” to take them out from under the male authority. Yet the Scriptural model shows that we are meant to be mature, grow up and make our own decisions because in the next life we will be judging the angels. The hierarchical model proves itself to be a model of the world. The servant model of one to another is the model of the Lord Jesus. It is doing good for others and thinking of them ahead of oneself, but with the empowerment of one’s own ability to make decisions and grow to full maturity as God’s “sons” who will rule the world.

Does this make sense?

Continuing with @127 Holly,
You said:

The passage does seem to be pointing out the “roles” of men and women, and Titus 2:5 says for wives to be “obedient to their own husbands”.
The word “obedient”
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
This verse seems to be indicating a hierarchical point of view?

It isn’t indicating a hierarchical view because of several things.

First of all what wives are asked to do is the same word as what is expected of every Christian. The word in Eph. 5:21 where we are to be subject to one another is the same as in Titus 2:5 of wives to husbands. If we make the term subject to as hierarchical in Titus 2:5 then we would have to make it the same in Eph 5:21 but it is impossible to have a hierarchy that is reciprocal.

Secondly the context around the words does not support a hierarchy. In Ephesians 5:21, the subjection is one to another which is reciprocal. In Titus 2:5 the young wives are to be thoughtful (sensible), holy, blameless (free from sin) , stewards in the home as ones who watch and safe guard the home. The term workers at home is literally:

to watch or keep the house, Aesch., Soph.: generally to keep safe, guard, Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English lexicon (546).

Thus a woman can hire a maid to clean the toilets, but she is to be a watchman on the wall for her home to keep it safe. I love the lexicons which show the historic meaning outside of the New Testament. This helps to show the “normal” use outside of any religious bias.

And in Titus 2:5, right before women are told to be subject to their husbands, they are told to be kind. The term means to be good, useful, beneficial. This is exactly what being subject means in its context. It means to submit oneself to be a benefit to one’s husband. Submission has two opposing angles of benefit. For one we submit to learn and receive from someone else and the other angle is that we submit to give benefit to someone else by putting their needs ahead of our own.

What women are never commanded to do is to “follow” their husbands. In Ephesians 6:1 where the Bible says that children are to “obey” their parents, the Greek term is hypakouete. This primarily means to follow, obey:

This is a word that has the meaning of being an adherent to, a follower, obedient. This gives the meaning of having to listen to someone because they are in a better position than you are. In fact only slaves and children are told to have this attitude of being a follower. Wives are never told that they must be a follower to their husband’s leadership. Instead they are told they they are to be responsible, in charge of the home, kind, holy, carrying out one’s responsibilities with a sensible and thoughtful attitude and their service is also to benefit their husbands. This is a giving of oneself to serve another by choice and not by compulsion. Hierarchy removes the service by choice as hierarchy and compulsion are two sides of the same door.

@127 Holly,
You said:

I’ve been “rebellious” for a couple of years now teaching Bible studies to young adults, both men and women, in my own home. I’ve not been sure what exactly the consequences of this “rebellion” might be. hmmm These young couples/singles (in their teens and 20’s) are not church goers but are willing to sit in my living room and learn of the gospel.. so I teach them. Some have gotten saved through my doing this.

Praise God for your faithfulness!

The other “hard” scriptures that have seemed to indicate my wrong doing, I’ve had in the “I don’t understand, but I’m sure God does” basket.
I agree that Titus doesn’t say women can ONLY teach women, but it seems equally wrong for Egals to read into the passage that women CAN teach men from these verses.

The reason that egals have no problem reading into the passage full body ministry is because this is what Paul consistently taught. In fact Paul taught that one part of the body cannot say to another member that they are not needed. If all of our gifts are needed, and if all of us are “sons” of God and all are part of the priesthood of the believer and all are joint heirs with Christ, then it is unnatural to assume a restriction. It would be like saying that all can teach except for Mexicans. Why can’t Mexicans teach? Well, because the Bible doesn’t specifically say that they can teach so unless the Bible says that Mexican believers can teach, we have to assume that they are restricted. Am I getting my point across?

What I am trying to say is that with our being joint heirs together with our brothers in Christ then to assume restrictions for anyone as if they are somehow less-than the other parts of the body, would be a foreign way to interpret Scripture.

More to come….

gengwall also said,

Cheryl may also point out that gatherings of the NT church was different than the traditional Jewish ceremonies. Women were permitted to attend and participate in those gatherings.

The NT church was mostly held in private homes and everyone was allowed to participate including women and slaves. It was nothing like today’s church where a pastor alone gives the message and everyone sits silently and listens.

In the comp view, Paul is trying to CORRECT a corporate problem and CHANGE the NT gathering to look more like the traditional Jewish ceremonies (where I believe males and females were physically separated) and even more, preventing women from uttering a peep in those gatherings.

This is one of the problems of the comp view as Paul doesn’t silence women’s gifts in the gathering of the church. Instead Paul encourages all to participate so that all may grow and be fed by the gifts meant for the common good.

@124 gengwall,

You said:

Regarding the teaching at issue. Cheryl has pointed out the other possibility – that the teaching of the woman in question was in private, not in public. Comps want to make this passage all about the corporate worship service. But the use of the singular points to a much more intimate setting.

That is exactly right! There is a sharp change in Paul’s grammar in verse 11. If verse 12 was meant to be one woman teaching men, Paul could easily have made it generic woman teaching generic men. Or he could have said generic women teaching generic men. That isn’t how it was written. And it isn’t a public reprimand that appears to be given.

Craig,
Thanks for thinking out loud and answering your own question! Your answer is very good. I would only add an answer that is referenced in the passage but Paul saying (vs 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived…

Connect this together with the original account and you have God’s assessment of Adam’s non-deceptive state when God says:

Genesis 3:17 (NAS) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have ….

Hear God pronounces a curse on the land for two reasons. The first and most important reason for the curse is Adam’s listening to the voice of his wife. Notice that God didn’t say that Adam listened to his wife (as if she had commanded him) but that he listened to her voice. Vine’s complete expository dictionary gives this basic definition for the Hebrew word used for “listening”:

Basically, this verb means to “hear” something with one’s ears, but there are several other nuances. In Gen. 37:17, a man told Joseph that he “heard” Joseph’s brothers say, “Let us go to Dothan”; in other words, he unintentionally “overheard” them say it. Shama? can also be used of “eavesdropping, or intentionally listening in on a conversation; so Sarah “overheard” what the three men said to Abram (Gen. 18:10). Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vol. 1: Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (pg 107).

Adam’s “hearing” of Eve’s voice was the conversation with the serpent. It was an intentional listening in on a conversation but it was not an intentional correction to the lie that she was being fed. Adam remained silent.

The fact is that God knew Adam’s internal state and that Adam was not deceived. He also knew that Adam listened to the conversation between Eve and the serpent. Lastly He knew that Adam did not act for Eve’s benefit or for God’s benefit by saving Eve from the lie. Rather he allowed another human being to be ensnared by the enemy in his own watch. Adam was the watchman on the wall and the deliberate abdication of his watch by refusing to use his knowledge to benefit another and refusing to snatch them from the fire through his knowledge, an action which God identified as treachery in Hosea 6:7, was also identified by God as the initial reason why God brought a curse on the earth because of Adam’s sin.

So is Adam’s silence of vital importance to the text in 1 Timothy 2:12-15? Absolutely! Adam was not deceived. Adam listened without acting on his state of non-deception. God cursed the earth for the first reason that Adam listened without action.

What’s the moral of the story? We are responsible for what we know and staying silent with our knowledge in the face of deception brings God’s disfavor. And what is the correction of the specific problem in Ephesus? It is fixed with his participation (thus the importance of “they” in verse 15).

I will bring up one more point in answer to another person’s question later.

gengwall,
I have prayed for your family’s situation and that God will receive praise for what He does because of the sad circumstances.

Craig,
I am determined to get to your three comments/questions later today.

Holly,
I know that I have missed some of what you asked and I will try to get through as much as I can today too.

We have a busy day today and then a social function tonight so it is going to be a stretch, but I am very interested in getting to as many questions as I can so.

Okay, I’m off to take care of breakfast and deal with the other necessities of the day and I will be back as soon as I can.