Thanks Lin! The study in Genesis has been the most fascinating to me and I take few things for granted now. The more you dig the more one sees the design of the Creator! But the more we dig into the hierarchical system, the more man centered it becomes to the point that they are now distorting the gospel itself. I for one cannot be silent. I must speak out. And “Paul” if he were really able to time travel to our time would certainly speak out.

Thanks Paula. I mixed up the bible with one on my own computer. I corrected the wording to the English version of the Hebrew.

Charis,
While relationship is very important and we certainly were created for relationships with our husbands, this is not the inspired words of Romans 1:26, 27.

The word “meet” in verse 27 in the KJV is an old type word and we do not use this word any longer in this way. It is the Greek word #1163 and it means “necessary” such as necessary punishment. If you look up each word in the Greek to see what the literal Greek means you will find that the meaning is a deep sexual lust, a burning lust of one male for another. The “use” of the woman is a sexual use according to the Lexicons and “that which is opposed to nature” is that which is against natures laws. It is a passage about shameful lusts that God gives them over to. While I agree very much with you about the importance of relationships, this passage is clear from the words that Paul uses, that is is about shameful sexual practices.

Michael,

Yes it is certainly a bad thing for groups like this to bolster their position by taking scripture out of context.

63 Frank,

I just found your comment in my “spam” box. I am not sure what triggered the software to think your comment was spam. Sorry that the comment from delayed getting up on the blog.

Cheryl, it is good to have you back and up to top form in expounding the Scriptures,

Thank you, Frank! I do apologize for being so slow lately. I have a lot of fires in the iron right now and distractions galore. I hope that things will get back to normal soon and it is my plan to finish my next “Paul” post within the next day or two.

In fact, in the Catholic Dictionary of Theology, the terms for these types of heretics are, as I recall, an Informal Heretic, one who teaches a heresy in ignorance, not realizing it is contrary to orthodox Christianity; and a Formal Herectic, who not only knows what orthodox Christianity but rejects it and deliberately teaches a heresy for his own reasons.

Thanks for educating us on this issue from another angle. I also appeal to reason. I think all of us inside know that there is a valid difference between one who has been deceived and who does his/her actions in that state and the one who is a conniving liar waiting for their next victim. God certainly will judge the heart and make a difference in his judgment between the two.

Proverbs 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.

Frank, I think your bluntness was done with graciousness. You even kept your words to “I” instead of “you” and thus defended yourself well.

60 Chris said:

1 Timothy 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Eve performed the action. The action is completed: She became a transgressor. Her action has the consequences found in Genesis 3:15-16. The consequences continue.

The problem you have is that you ignored the grammar as pertaining to “the woman” and you appear to make it applicable to all women. However the particular grammar in question is the action “fell into transgression” that is found in 1 Timothy 2:14. The grammar is: verb, perfect, active, indicative, third person, singular. Here is the proper explanation of this grammar per Michael S. Heiser : Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

perfect — The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action.

active — The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject is performing the verbal action or is in the state described by the verb.

indicative — The mood in which the action of the verb or the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as real. It is the mood of assertion, where the writer portrays something as actual (as opposed to possible or contingent on intention). Depending on context, the writer may or may not believe the action is real, but is presenting it as real.

It is the subject “the woman” who is in the state of being at the time of writing. This cannot apply to Eve.

You said:

The perfect tense presents no problem for my interpretation.
But let’s not just look at the definition. Here are a couple examples:

John 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished (perfect tense),” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

The redemptive work of Christ is finished. The action is completed. The consequences continue. God’s elect are saved by the finished work of Christ.

The “is finished” pertains to the work of the subject. Jesus’ work is finished and Jesus (the subject) continues in that finished state. Your example cannot be applied to a continued state for Eve since she is not continuing in the state of transgression.

The grammar and your examples proves you wrong. “The woman” of verse 14 cannot apply to Eve. It is another specific woman that Paul is communicating to Timothy about her state of continued transgression.

You said:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written (perfect tense), ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

It stands written. The action of writing is completed, but the word of God endures. The consequence is that you can continue to depend on it.

In the first example, there is no continuing state of finishing. It is finished. In the second example, there is no continuing state of writing. The writing is done.

The action of writing is finished, but the state of the writing as the written word of God continues.

Once again, the subject is what is in a state of continuing. Your examples prove that just as the grammar states. Therefore 1 Tim. 2:14 cannot be about Eve because at the time of the writing Eve was not in a state of continuation of her transgression.

It’s like you haven’t even read the definition. The action is completed. Please don’t conflate the terminology by saying “the fall into transgression is a complete state”.

This is a perfect example for those of you who should see how complementarians react when faced with solid biblical grammar that they cannot refute. The fall for “the woman” is an action that is in the past, but her continued state in the transgression noted by the specific grammar can only refer to a woman who is alive at the time of Paul’s writing who is continuing in her sin.

Again, the action of becoming a transgressor is completed. That Eve continued to be a transgressor after she became one is beside the point. Even on your interpretation, that ‘the woman’ is a specific wife, a continuing transgression would be problematic since Paul was supposedly stopping her from teaching false doctrine.

It is not beside the point at all. Eve did not continue in her transgression as she confessed her sin to God. There is no problem having “the woman” as a specific person who is continuing in her deceived state and who Paul stopped from practicing her error by making sure that she was not teaching the one who she was trying to influence with her false doctrine. You will have to prove how my interpretation is not acceptable in this text.

Eve’s death does not end the consequences of her transgression for women (Genesis 3:15-16).

First of all it is the subject who has a continuing state. The subject is not all women but one woman. If you say the one woman is Eve, then you are not able to have a state of transgression continuing with a dead woman. It fits perfectly, though, with a specific woman who is alive at the time of Paul’s writing.

Secondly Scripture never says that Eve’s sin is spread to others. The Bible specifically says that it is by ONE man that sin entered the world. Sin did not enter the world through Eve. So not only do you have a subject that is singular and not plural, you have a subject that must be alive, and the continuing state must be about that one subject. I would recommend that you do further reading on this particular Greek grammar. You have not followed the Greek rules and so your application is invalid and must be rejected.

62 Paula,

Very well said!

59 tiro,

Thank you for letting me know how clearly you can see my “can nots”. That was very encouraging to me!

genwall,
You said:

….and so, I have a new paraphrase (*fanfare plays in background*)

vs. 11 (notwithstanding all I have just said) make sure a certain woman (you know who I am talking about) learns in silence and subjection. Yet, I do not allow such a woman to teach or to “Lord it over” a man, but to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve*. And Adam was not deceived. But this woman has been deceived and has fallen into sin. Still, she can be restored through The Birth! That is if they continue seriously in faith, charity, and holiness.

Good job!

21 Chris,

You said:

In verses 13-14 Adam and Eve represent any man and any woman because they are the prototypical man and woman (see Belleville). So, ‘she’ in verse 15 becomes any woman from verses 11-12 who is represented by ‘the woman’. Keep in mind that Eve represents any woman.

You have stated that “Adam” and “Eve” represent any man and any woman, but the passage does not say this and the implications of this are a big problem. Eve was deceived but not all women are deceived. Adam was not deceived but not all men are not deceived. Rather than a “prototypical man and woman”, Paul makes a very specific reference to Adam and Eve in their order of creation and he links that to deception. There is not even one iota of proof that Paul is referencing the deception of Eve to the natural state of all women.

‘[T]he woman’ in verse 14 is Eve. So, ‘the woman’ represents any woman.

This is not possible since the specific grammar rules out both Eve and all women. Eve’s transgression is not continuing and the use of the perfect tense cannot include Eve. Since Eve cannot be “the woman” referenced in verse 14, Eve cannot be representative of all women. We need to take Paul at face value and not disregard the specific grammar.

Consequently, ‘they’ in verse 15 refers back to those women in verses 9-10, each of whom is represented by the woman Eve. The difference between ‘she’ and ‘they’ is not in the set of women to which the pronouns refer, but in how the set is used. ‘[S]he’ refers to any woman in the set, but ‘they’ refers to every woman in the set. So, the method of reference is different.

Not only is Eve not a representative of all women, but if you make “she” to be any woman in the set and “they” to be every woman in the set you have a problem. It means that the salvation of any woman is dependent on the actions of all women. Unless all women continue in the faith, no woman can be saved. This is so far off the wall that you have made women to be pretty much incapable of being saved and God cannot save one woman without saving them all.

So not only do you have no proof in the passage that Paul has made Eve to be a representative of all women, but you have disregarded the perfect tense in verse 14 eliminating Eve since she is long dead. You have also bypassed the first plural (a man and a woman) to go back to a section where Paul made reference to women which is clearly a different section since Paul changed grammar when he went to the singular. I hate to say it but your offering of this explanation for verses 11-15 make the passage both convoluted and illogical. You simply are going to have to do better than that. Think through the entire grammar. Think through the flow. Remember the context is deception – the very reason why Paul left Timothy behind – and the immediate context is deception with the very first deceived woman. It is clear that Paul is giving Timothy instructions about a problem in Ephesus and anything beyond that localized problem creates a can of worms that will make one disregard the inspiration of scripture as it is written.

Chris,

I would like you to show from the scriptures where those who have been deceived and because of their ignorance are teaching error are in the same category as the “savage wolves” (Acts 20:29), “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13) and are willingly participating in the “trickery of men” (Eph 4:14)?

The fact is for those who are willing to look at the scriptures for what it says, they will see that Paul is gentle with the deceived:

1 Tim 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
1 Tim 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
1 Tim 1:5 **But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.**

…and harsh with the deceivers

1 Tim 1:20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.

Paul considered himself one of the former who was eligible to receive mercy because he acted ignorantly in unbelief (his own testimony given in 1 Tim 1:14) so that through the one who was ignorant of the truth was given great grace and mercy by God as a way to show God’s great patience with sinners (1 Tim 1:16). To say that God treats all alike whether they are fully deceived or whether they are one of the deceivers makes God out to be unjust.

I stand by my comments and my exegesis. If I am wrong, I ask you to prove that I am wrong from the text itself.

Frank #48,

Good thoughts!

41 Chris,

I apologize for being so slow in answering. My time away provided no opportunity for digging into the deep questions.

You frequently make a distinction between ignorant, deceived false teachers and false teachers who know better, but deliberately teach falsely. To support your claim that this distinction is in the context you attempt to contrast the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1:13 with Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:18-20. You claim that Paul was ignorant, but Hymenaeus and Alexander knew better. But this line of reasoning gets you into trouble with Paul.

The problem with your reasoning, Chris, is that Paul goes beyond deceived into deliberate deceivers and even though deliberate deceivers can also be deceived (2 Tim. 3:13), they are uniquely charlatans and as such Paul handed them over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20). Paul never referred to himself as a deceiver nor did he refer to those who were only deceived as deserving to be handed over to Satan. Paul makes a clear differentiation between those who teach error because they are fully deceived and those who teach error because they are liars and swindlers.

Paul said that he was ignorant and acted in unbelief:

1 Timothy 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

In contrast the deceivers act in deception, evil and harm. Paul said that Alexander did him much harm (2 Tim. 4:14) and Hymenaeus was one of the ones who lied about the resurrection. These evil men and imposters were never brought into the church to learn the truth. Paul sent them out of the congregation into the hands of satan. So while those who are deceivers can also be deceived (making these ones also ignorant), they are more than deceived. They are deceivers and as such they are treated in a harsh manner.

Jasmin,
Welcome!

No, Christians do not believe that Jesus was an “angel” prior to being on the earth. However Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that, however it isn’t a doctrine that can be found in the scriptures.

Frank,
I have fixed the comment error. Funny I didn’t even catch that one myself. Thank you for your kind remarks about my piloting gifts! It took me a very long time to be able to even acknowledge my own gifts but my husband taught me that if I fail to acknowledge a word of praise then I fail the opportunity to give the glory back to the one who gives us our gifts. It is with deep gratitude that I acknowledge the Lord Jesus as the one who works in me and I look forward to reading more of the gift that He shares through you as you provide the needed gift of the big picture.

Frank,
Your observation and that of the Richards is well worth thinking about. For many their presuppositions have been used as a foundation to create a meaning and they have never even thought through a defense of those presuppositions. Paul cannot be used to support a hierarchy in Genesis and then Genesis be used to support a hierarchical view of Paul’s in Timothy. That is circular reasoning and it is faulty thinking. What truly was Paul meaning by going back to Genesis? Timothy was not confused by Paul like so many of us are. Paul’s logic and straightforward reasoning from the Septuagint will provide the basis for our next interview.

gengwall,

I can absolutely say AMEN! to that application.

Paula,
Good thoughts. The problem one has to deal with, though, is that “a woman” is only stopped from teaching “a man”. She wasn’t stopped from teaching women or children. Why? While the other false teachers were out in the open, it seems to me that she was in private with her husband. I won’t say more about this now because the next post should clarify.

I love this kind of back and forth dialog. That is the one thing that my DVD is missing – instant feedback!

gengwall,

Thanks for your point of view! The reasons I do not believe that “they” is the whole congregation are:

1. The verses 11 – 15 are a separate section, separated from the previous verses by a change in grammar. Therefore we would look to the plural “they” from within the passage first before we go outside the section.

2. If Paul meant the entire congregation he would have said “you” plural. It was Paul’s habit to differentiate between the insiders and the outsiders. See the example below:

1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
1Co 15:30 Why are we also in danger every hour?

Notice that “we” means Christians and the ones who baptize for the dead are “they” (non-Christians)? When Paul is including the entire congregation, it is his habit to say “we” or “you” (if he is not there) but not “they”.

3. Why is her salvation dependent on what the entire congregation does? (More on this point will be woven into the next interview when we head back to Genesis with the Apostle Paul). I think I will be able to give you enough information with the next post to give a strong defense of why the husband is key to her salvation. If “Paul” doesn’t convince you, that’s okay. It isn’t a point of division but it is a point that will tie all things together. When the package is sewed up, we will let you loose to unravel it if you would like 🙂

Paula,
Well said!! You are taking my arguments and expanding them and doing a great job. I especially liked this:

The problem again is that this “she/they” isn’t in a vacuum.

This reminds me of a good teacher saying “context, context, context”.

The interesting thing is that if a sentence construction of she/they were given to a complementarian in any other setting (outside of 1 Timothy 2), they would be quick to point out that she means “she” and they means “they” and if we tried to noodle with the grammar as the comps have in 1 Timothy 2, they would cry foul so loud our ears would hurt.

Bottom line is that the passage isn’t easy. It isn’t even necessarily clear. But it is meant to be understood if we take it as it is written and work it through piece by piece. Work it through backwards and tie in the pronouns to the original nouns without prejudice. Allow Paul to be consistent within the passage and it will open up like a flower in spring. It is a wonderful aroma – understanding God’s message regarding salvation out of deception. It is also a wonderful plan that God had to bring salvation through the very first one who was deceived by the enemy. Satan looked to destroy all of mankind through the destruction of the woman, but through her God brought the Messiah who came to save us from destruction and to destroy the destroyer. God’s plan shows that all things can be turned around by God to bring good out of what was planned as evil. God is due all glory and honor and praise for his sovereign plan!

Don,
If singular = plural is an option, all it would take is a biblical example. I am still waiting for Chris to show me such an example.

I believe that all scripture was meant to be understood but not all scripture is easily understood without a lot of work. I do not believe that scripture was meant to be misleading or confusing. I am very happy that you agree that Timothy would have understood what Paul wrote. It is not a secret code. This particular passage is inspired scripture that is hard to understand as some scripture is according to Peter (2 Peter 3:16), but it is not impossible to understand. One must work through the grammar, the context, who the letter is written to, the culture and try to do all of this outside of one’s presuppositions. Hard – yes! Impossible – no!

Anyways, if you can find a biblical example of what you are proposing for Paul’s anomaly grammar, go for it. I would love to look at an example. A second witness is very important to establish a matter that affects all godly women.

Don,
The problem with this is that the proper way to speak about that “group” would be either with the singular form or the plural but never a mixture. i.e. “She will be saved…if she…” could then refer to that group or “They will be saved…if they..” could also refer to that same group, but “She will be saved..if they..” cannot have she=they=same group because this is improper grammar. This is why I always ask anyone who believes that this is possible to show me a second witness to this kind of grammar. No one yet has shown a valid example, so without a second witness to such a grammatical anomaly (or we could say a grammatical error), we can properly rule it out. This means that we can believe Paul when he said both “she” and “they” in his sentence that “she” may be part of “they”, but “she” is not equal to the plural “they”. Instead we can take him at face value that he meant a single female when he said “she” and he meant more than one person when he said “they”. If anyone wants to dispute this, I am very open to hearing the other side, but that person must provide proof of the particular kind of grammar that they are advocating.

34 Frank,

But in this comment, in part a refocusing on the “big picture” (i.e., the historical, cultural and literary context) in response to comments made by Chris and Donald (20, 12)–some elements of which I agree with and some of which I do not–I would like to add to and expand upon my own (10), if I may.

Thank you for coming onto my blog to offer the “big picture”. While I consider my gift to be seeing the tiny details that others may miss, I recognize that my brothers and sisters in Christ can add to my understanding of scripture by giving the “big picture” approach. Often I do not see the “big picture” until I have worked through every little detail of the text in my biblical “microscope”, so I always appreciate having a look outside my own box that brings me a fresh perspective of the “big picture”. Thanks!

As I had stated in my previous comment, as general rules and guidelines Paul had laid down for the churches he had founded, there are striking parallels between 1 Cor. 11:2-14:32 and 1 Tim. 2:1-15. Both passages, as revealed by commonalities in concerns, terms and phraseology, are examples of standard rules and guidelines designed to both define and regulate the proper conduct of men and women as they together engage in intercessory prayer, adoration of God, and in prophesying in the house church meetings.

Excellent point to remind us about recurring terms, concerns and phraseology!

Moreover, on the basis of the principle of a legal pronouncement or a word of testimony requiring confirmation and validation by two or three witnesses, which Cheryl has argued so well from the Scriptures, we can firmly and without reservation state that Paul himself, as long as the standard rules and guidelines were followed, both approved and urged men and women to engage together in mutual, complementary prayer, adoration of God, and prophesying.

Again a wonderful overview regarding the scriptures and my argument!

Now you would think, in light of this clear, threefold testimony given by Paul himself, that when people read what he says in 1 Cor. 14:33b-40 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, they would immediately recognize that these passages are clear departures from his regular rules and guidelines and that they must be Spirit-given, ad hoc rulings pertaining to special problematic situations arising in Corinth and Ephesus either 1) such was the nature of the problem that the standard regulations did not apply or 2) as the historical, cultural and literary context of both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy indicates, there were deliberate violations of these Pauline regulations due to certain rebellious factions, influenced by heretical teaching, that were to be found among the members of the congregations in Corinth and in Ephesus.

I feel so blessed to read your review of these passages in such a clear and concise way and with that “big picture” view. Thank you for your contribution and your affirmation of the work that I have done to make this passage understandable to the common man. I am so blessed by the quality of people who visit my blog and who give me their insights. Truly the body of Christ is blessed when we work together. All of us are needed with our gifts. You have greatly blessed me with your gift that is definitely on a bigger view than mine typically is. Thank you so much!

33 tiro,

Excellent point, Cheryl. Nowhere is anyone in the whole of Scripture told to authenteo another person. It would be an activity that is ungodly behavior.

People don’t always think this through. They understand that “a woman” is not allowed to “authentein” a man, but they seem to fail to pick up the point that no man is every given permission to “authentein” another man. There is not even one reference that I have ever found that makes “authenteo” a godly Christian activity.

31 gengwall,

You said:

1. The “woman” in verse 14 is a specific, real woman, not a representative of a group. The noun has the definite article. I know there has been a lot of discussion over translation in absence of the definite article but when it is present, Greek is unambiguous – it relates a specific person, place, or thing. Verse 14 can’t correctly be translated as “a woman” and is utter nonsense as “women”. The only correct translation is “the woman”.[1]

Bravo! I greatly appreciate your wisdom and the way that you have expressed yourself in a very understandable way so that all of us should be able to catch it.

2. The deception that “the woman” fell victim to was past but the resulting transgression is ongoing. The “to be” verb is in 2nd Perfect tense. It is very easily and consistently translated into English as “has become”. The only correct translation therefore is that “the woman…has become in transgression”. Any translation referring to a past state, subsequently concluded is just plain in error. Since the state is ongoing, “the woman” can not possibly be Eve.[2]

Amen!

3. The childbirth is a specific childbirth. Again, the definite article is present. This can not be grammatically translated as generic child-bearing and certainly can not be turned arbitrarily into a verb (”through bearing children”, as in some translations).[3] Since, there is no possible child birth of Eve’s that could apply, nor can it possibly refer to child-bearing in general, nor is there any reference to a child born by “the woman”, this can only mean one possible thing – the birth of Jesus. This of course makes perfect sense, since “the child-bearing” is in direct relation to…

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

4. The redemption or salvation spoken of is in the future. “she shall be saved (or redeemed, restored, preserved)”. Technically, the verb is future indicative – “she shall be being saved”. Since the salvation that “the child-bearing” brings is in the future for “the woman”, again it can not possibly be Eve.

Regardless of what one thinks about the construction of “woman” in prior verses, the grammar in 14 and 15 is unambiguous in that: A) a specific woman is “in view”, B) it can not be Eve, C) it is not her bearing of children but the birth of Christ that makes her redemption possible. Although our translations get it right on point A, they almost universally distort, confuse, and misrepresent the text on points B and C. And considering the grammar is not at all complex, I am saddened to say that I am forced to believe the deception portrayed in the translations must be intentional. Let us hope that we have not “been deceived” and therefore “become in transgression”.

Very well stated!! Although I am an eternal optimist, I do not know how much of the bad translation of this passage has been intentional by translators who want to input their hierarchical views. No doubt many wanted to translated the passage in a way that people could understand, but their mistranslation shows that they themselves didn’t understand. God’s word does not need to be corrected. The grammar will stand as it is written and when we find ourselves forced to face the grammar and the implications of that specific grammar, it forces us to have to reject a universal prohibition against women. I have been so blessed to see many pastor’s eyes opened by the inspired grammar. Many will fight tooth and nail not to see the implications of the grammar because their doctrine about women is based on a faulty mistranslation. They want to hold onto their doctrine so tightly whether out of loyalty to other male teachers, their own pride or because they find it hard to admit that they have been wrong about an issue that touches their sisters in Christ. My heart goes out to those who have humbled themselves to admit their error. I know it is hard for them, but I believe that God will honor their humility.

genwall, thank you for such great comments!

Jim,
Welcome to my blog! Thanks for your comments.

But, the intent of the woman’s ministry is not to exercise “authority” over men but under the Holy Spirit’s empowerment to bless those who hear the Word of God whether
women or men.

I too believe this. But I also believe that men are not to “exercise authority” over other men. Paul never once gave men the freedom to “authentein” other men. Rather, Jesus said that they were not to “lord it” over others like the Gentile nations, but were rather to be servants of the body of Christ. I believe that if each one of us decided to accept our opportunity to be servants of all, all of us could greatly bless the church with each one of our God-given gifts.

30 gengwall,

You said regarding Chris’ use of Numbers 30:

And yet, the word “they” is never used within this passage…thanks for proving the point that “they” and “she” cannot be analagous.

This is exactly what was going through my mind as I was reading his post. I can’t believe that he was actually tearing down his own argument.

It makes no sense at all unless verses 11-12 are completely disconected from verses 1 and 9-10. Although in theory, they certainly might both pertain to “women”, they can’t both possibly pertain to the same group of women. The admonission in verses 11-12 has to refer to some other woman or women than those already exhorted by Paul in vs. 1 to raise their voices in “supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks”. Since Paul dramatically switched to the singular, as even recognized in the KJV (”the woman” in verse 11), and confirmed in verse 14b (”but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience – HNV, also equiv in ASV, YNG) it seems pretty clear he was not referring to another group of women but to a single soul. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is the only conclusion that makes sense from Paul’s grammer.

Very well said!!

But, I have never seen anyone try to make a “she” into “they” before this.

I have given this challenge out for years and no one yet has managed to find an example that makes “she” into “they”. If I was so clearly wrong then there is a problem with these hierarchical men who cannot find even one example to correct me. Clearly if I am in the wrong, these men are at fault for their failure to prove their point and correct a sister in Christ. They speak great swelling words against basic grammar structures but have no single piece of evidence to make Paul into a renegade self-created grammarian.

28 pinklight,

Now, if Paul had a specific woman and a specific man in mind then it doesn’t matter one way or the other if they are married, though as Chris has pointed out, ‘they’ are likely husband and wife and it doesn’t matter since the woman and man in the passage remain SPECIFIC persons rather than refer to women and men in general.

Amen!

24 Chris,

I apologize that I haven’t been too fast this past week. It has been an extremely busy time for me.

Cheryl, it seems to me that you have fabricated a rule of Greek grammar for yourself regarding what ‘she’ and ‘they’ can or cannot refer to in order to prop up your view on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. You then appeal to it as if it is some well known rule of Greek grammar that ‘she’ and ‘they’ cannot have the same antecedent.

It is a basic rule of grammar and if it is “fabricated” it should be so easy to disprove. All you have to do is provide another example of “she” or “he” called the plural “they” and I will stand corrected regarding both the Greek grammar and the inspired scriptures. Since no one yet has been able to provide such an example, and you are so certain that it is perfectly fine for a singular to be spoken of as a plural (she=they), then go ahead and prove it. I dare you to find such an example.

As Rene Descartes has said, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

My claim is that there is no second witness that shows a grammatical construction of a she=they in the entire bible. I do not have to go through all the grammatical examples to prove my case since my claim is one of non-existence. Your claim is that she can equal they. Yours is a positive claim and so you are the one who must prove their claim.

Now, if one specific woman were in view, then I trust you will agree that the plural ‘they’ would more likely refer to a husband together with his wife than anything else. But, as I’ve already argued, husbands and wives are not in view here.

Read my newest post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/04/02/5-apostle-paul-they/ to see that my argument is not about husbands (plural) and wives (plural).

So making the antecedent of ‘they’ out to be a husband and wife is almost certainly wrong. Even your own writers recognize the problems with this….See Linda Belleville’s article…“I also want women . . .” (NIV,vv. 9-10) simply cannot be limited to husbands and wives. Nor can the verses that follow be read in this way. Paul does refer to Adam and Eve in verses 13-14; but it is to Adam and Eve as the prototypical male and female, not as a married couple…
What Linda Belleville is saying here verses 11 & 12 cannot mean just married women (plural). She isn’t arguing that Paul isn’t talking about one woman in particular and one man in particular. In fact in the portion you quoted, she doesn’t even entertain this interpretation so she could not be refuting it. You have certainly misrepresented Linda Belleville by trying to make it out as if she is refuting me. Nice try, but you are shooting blanks.

Notice here that Belleville answers the argument that the reference to Adam and Eve shows that a husband and wife are in view (a claim that was made here recently).

As stated above, Linda Belleville is stating that she doesn’t believe that husbands and wives are in view. She is dealing with the argument regarding all wives and stating that it couldn’t be a prohibition against only wives vs. single women. It is a respectful thing to properly represent the opposition.

So, given the problems with taking ‘they’ to refer to a husband and wife (among other things), I have to return to the patriarchalist view that ‘they’ refers to the women in the church to whom Paul is giving instructions. And, I have to regard this alleged rule of Greek grammar you’ve put forward as implausible.

This is where your problem is. If you want to make “they” as women in the church, then who is “she”? It is improper grammar to make a singular equal to a plural regarding these persons. I have not seen an example in English nor have I ever seen such an example in Greek grammar. It is not “implausible” to be grammatically consistent. It is the way that language is built so that sentences do not become nonsense.

I eagerly await your ability to prove me wrong. You have such a simple task ahead of you. All you need is one example. Without a grammatical case to point to, we cannot understand Paul in any other way than the grammatical standard in language. A singular pronoun is not equal to a plural pronoun. The singular goes with the singular and the plural goes with the plural. Paul is to be taken at face value and his grammar is carefully crafted and it is not nonsense.

Mrs. Webfoot,

A warm welcome to my blog!

20 Chris,

You said:

Here a command is given to the congregation. The pronoun ‘she’ refers to ‘a woman’, but the command isn’t just for one specific woman, it is for all women.

This is no problem at all. “A woman” can refer to generic woman. The point I was making is that “a woman” is always referred to as “she” and never referred to as “they”. “Women” are referred to as “she”. The grammar can be generic woman for both cases but in each case the grammar must match. In other words “a woman” will never be matched with “they”. You have not proved me wrong and I challenge you to do so from the scripture.

The reason Paul switches to the generic singular form is because he intends to connect his proscription in verse 12 to his argument from the creation order in verses 13-14 where the singulars ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ are used as representatives of all men and women. In verse 14, ‘the woman’ refers back to Eve and stands the representative of all women.

If this is the case then Paul (and the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul) made some blunders with the grammar. Verse 14 cannot refer to Eve and neither can verse 15 because of the grammar. Verse 15 is future tense and verse 14 is continuing transgression and neither can apply to Eve. As far as Adam referring to all men, that doesn’t appear to be the case cause “all men” are not formed first and not all men are *not* deceived. *Adam* was formed first and only he was not deceived.

’[S]he’ is any woman, and ‘they’ refers to those women.

I am asking for a second witness for this type of grammar. Show me another example from scripture. I hope that you do not just ignore my request like you have ignored Paula’s questions. That is not a good sign of someone who wants to press on towards truth. Please do answer my question and give me a second witness to this kind of grammatical error in the scriptures.

So, in context, Paul is giving instructions for women. He switches from plural to generic singular but is still giving instructions for women.

There is no need to switch from plural to singular if he is still talking about women in general. This would confuse the matter instead of keeping it simple and understandable.

The switch to generic singular anticipates his argument from the creation order. Adam and Eve stand as representatives of all men and all women in Paul’s argument.

Prove this argument. Show how all men have not been deceived and all women have been deceived. This is not a representative argument since it is reflective of Adam’s position alone (not deceived) and not that of all men.

The woman in verse 14 is Eve. So, the woman is representative of all women.

You cannot just keep repeating your argument. I have already shown how verse 14 doesn’t fit with “the woman” being Eve because of the continuing state of transgression.

‘She’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14. All women are still in view here.

John MacArthur has already proven my point and he is a strong complementarian. He gives the proof that Eve cannot be the “she” from verse 15 since the grammar is future tense. Therefore either your argument is true and the passage is filled with all kinds of grammar errors (which isn’t possible since it was written by the Holy Spirit) or the grammar is true and verse 15 cannot be Eve. Instead verse 14 AND verses 11 & 12 are all a particular women who is continuing in transgression at the time of Paul’s writing and whose salvation is spoken of in verse 15.

‘[T]hey’, in verse 15, can have an inferred antecedent that refers distributively to all of the women in the church because the topic continues to be instruction to women and ‘the woman’ to which ‘she’ refers stands for all women.

This will be the subject of our next interview with Paul. I am sure that it will interest you. It may take me a couple of days to get the interview complete as I am at a women’s conference this weekend.

If there is some rule of Greek grammar that requires the pronoun ‘they’ to have explicit antecedents in the text, then (unless this rule is extraordinarily arcane) Greek experts would have caught this in 1 Timothy 2:15 and brought everyone’s attention to it. So, I seriously doubt that there is any such rule that would prevent the Greek ‘they’ in 1 Timothy 2:15 from having an inferred antecedent, especially given how this verse has been understood by most commentators.

The experts have always said that this is a very difficult passage and most say that they do not know exactly what Paul means or why he kept switching from plural to singular and back to plural. If there was a Greek or Hebrew precedent for this kind of grammar, it surely would have been brought to light by now. By the biblical standard of two or three witnesses, I ask for a second witness for this kind of grammar. If it is valid to make she = they, then surely there will be a second witness. Will you be successful at finding a second witness? I am still waiting. It appears to me that you are begging the question.

1. Few elders attended the seminar. They stayed home instead.

They = the elders who did not attend the seminar. The antecedent is the complement of ‘few elders’ in the set of all elders.

“Few” means “more than one” so it can properly be called “they”. But it would not be proper to say: “An elder attended the seminar. They stayed home instead.” This is because “an elder” cannot equal “they” just as “a woman” cannot equal “they”. You are trying so hard to circle the issue but your circling only proves that you are unable to answer my question and to prove the unique and improper grammar with a second witness.

I’ve seen the claim that the switch from ‘she’ to ‘they’ is a problem for patriarchalists several times here, but I have yet to see any documentation to support this alleged violation of the rules of Greek grammar.

It is a violation of the rules of any grammar as I have already shown. It would be such a simple exercise to prove me wrong by bringing up a second witness. But alas the proof of the improper grammar as “proper” is for you to prove. Go ahead. I would love to see you try. I think that you know deep inside your heart that this one is unprovable but you are not willing to say that you are wrong. Am I right?

Your appeal to Terri Darbi Moore is without merit without proof that this kind of grammar is valid. Neither Terri or you can give another example of such violation of the accepted use of grammar. If you or she could, then her statement would have merit and we can examine the second witness. But without a second witness it is not only improper grammar, but it is without precedent and would make Paul (and the Holy Spirit) out to deliberately confuse people. I would rather believe that Paul meant what he said and said what he meant.

As far as my argument being a “red herring” it should take nothing to prove it. Provide a second witness to prove your claim that Paul used a valid type of grammar making a singular noun equal to a plural noun in the same sentence.

Again, I would recommend that you read my next post about “they” and see if you can refute “Paul”. 🙂

13 Paula,

What I’m getting at is that Paul does not say “every she” or “all she” or anything like that (which would be nonsense).

Good point! “Everyone is hungry and they all want to eat” is acceptable grammar. However she is hungry and they want to eat does not equate “she” as the exact same thing as “they”. The grammar rules show that a singular must equate with another singular and a plural with a plural. I know of no way for the complementarians to get out of the grammar. If they think they can, I would like to see the biblical example provided. Where is the second witness?