Chris

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.

This interpretation of the perfect tense ‘ginomai’ fits the definition I cited previously from http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#PERFECT:

“The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.”

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.

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.

Cheryl: “The fall into transgression is a complete state but the transgression is a continuing state.”

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”.

Cheryl: “The grammar is the perfect tense which means that the results of her actions are continuing. She is still in that transgression.”

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.

Cheryl: “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.”

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

Don (post 45): “The idea of treating verses (which were added much later) like propositions in Euclid is preposterous. As the Bible was written by Hebrew thinkers, think like a Hebrew, not a Greek.”

And Don (post 51): “One can criticize from a topical approach, but one cannot simply lift verses from their immediate context and string them together like propositions in a proof in Euclid. One needs to discuss each verses INSIDE its pericope for its meaning first, BEFORE going on to a discussion of a topic taught throughout the Bible.”

If post 51 explains what you meant in post 45, I would prefer it if you had just posted post 51 rather than being as obscure as you were in post 45. Thanks.

Frank,

I think you need to be more specific. Which premise are you having trouble with? And exactly what is the distinction you believe Cheryl is making? Is it different motives?

Explain this: Paul says in verse 13, “I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” Did Paul’s ignorance and unbelief give him a claim on God’s mercy?

Don: “I agree that the argument INSIDE a pericope can be logical. What I disagree with on a basic level is the idea that one can string verses from various pericopes together as if they were propositions in Euclid’s Elements. This may even happen to work sometimes, but is not a valid method of exegesis. Instead, read each teaching unit’s text as a unit for what it says.”

Prooftexting is always a danger, but this fact does not make cross-referencing illegitimate. I’m criticizing Cheryl’s position from a topical approach.

Don: “The idea of treating verses (which were added much later) like propositions in Euclid is preposterous. As the Bible was written by Hebrew thinkers, think like a Hebrew, not a Greek.”

But Gordon H Clark said in God and Logic:
“On this basis-that is, on the basis that Scripture is the mind of God-the relation to logic can easily be made clear. As might be expected, if God has spoken, he has spoken logically. The Scripture therefore should and does exhibit logical organization. For example, Romans 4:2 is an enthymematic hypothetical destructive syllogism. Romans 5:13 is a hypothetical constructive syllogism. 1 Corinthians 15:15-18 is a sorites. Obviously, examples of standard logical forms such as these could be listed at great length.” (from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16)

Don wrote: “1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, . . .”

Indeed, whatever Paul’s opponents were teaching exactly, did not agree with the gospel of Christ. Compare 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

1 Timothy 1:8-11, “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

The proper use of the law is in accordance with the gospel. Apparently, the teaching of Paul’s opponents failed to recognize what the proper use of the law was and consequently taught in a way that was out of accord with the gospel, presumably, by making the law a means of salvation.

In contrast to his opponents’ teaching, Paul gives us the true nature of the gospel in an account of his own conversion (12-17).

Cheryl,

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.

[1] If anyone teaches false doctrine (heterodidaskaleo), then he is ignorant. (1 Timothy 6:3-4)
[2] Hymenaeus and Alexander teach false doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:18-20)
[3] Therefore, Hymenaeus and Alexander are ignorant. (1, 2 Modus Ponens)
[4] If anyone is ignorant and they teach false doctrine, then they are deceived.
[5] Hymenaeus and Alexander are ignorant and they teach false doctrine. (2, 3 Conjunction)
[6] Therefore, Hymenaeus and Alexander are deceived. (4, 5 Modus Ponens)
[7] Hymenaeus and Alexander are deceived false teachers. (2, 6 Conjunction)

Premise [1] follows easily from 1 Timothy 6:3, which says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine . . . he . . . understands nothing” (ellipses mine). In other words, anyone who teaches a different doctrine is ignorant.

Premise [2] is essentially something you argue for in the dialogue above.

Premise [4] comes from a statement you made in http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/05/06/1tim2objections/. You said, “Whenever someone who is ignorant teaches error they are deceived. When one who knows the truth and teaches error purposely, they are not deceived but deceivers.”

Finally, [7] contradicts your claims about Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom you have said know better, but the argument conclusions show that they are ignorant and deceived false teachers.

Cheryl, I see a lot of views discussed on your blog that, IMO, don’t represent the best of modern complementarianism/patriarchalism. I’m not sure what the point of responding to all of the lame “patriarchalist” views is, but if you want to follow the principle of charity with complementarians and patriarchalists, I suggest you familiarize yourself with their strongest arguments. Given the stuff your blog posters are responding to, one would think they’ve never read a decent complementarian or patriarchalist article in their lives. In that connection, I recommend:

John Piper, who represents part of my view on this fairly well:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper89/6-25-89.htm

For the meaning of “saved through childbearing” I recommend Andreas Köstenberger’s paper:

http://biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Studies14.pdf

Though I would differ a little with Köstenberger in that I suspect “childbearing” is a metonymy rather than a synecdoche.

And finally, if you really want to see a comprehensive treatment, get William Mounce’s commentary on the Pastoral Epistles and get Women in the Church by Andreas Köstenberger. Put one in your left hand, and the other in your right.

Cheryl,

Okay, you got me to tweak my understanding of the pronoun-antecedent relationships in 1 Tim 2:8-15 a little. There are some difficulties, though I’m not sure they are insurmountable, with making ‘she’ from verse 15 explicitly refer to ‘the woman’ in verse 14. I could still go with the inferred antecedent explanation, but here’s a way of thinking about it that avoids those issues better:
In verses 8-10 Paul is giving exhortations to men (plural) and women (plural). Then, in verses 11-12, he uses the indefinite noun phrases ‘a woman’ and ‘a man’ because he intends to argue from the representative man and woman, Adam and Eve, to establish his conclusion. 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. ‘[T]he woman’ in verse 14 is Eve. So, ‘the woman’ represents any woman. 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.

In my understanding, there is a chiastic structure in this passage that goes like this:

A. Christian ‘women’ (plural) (8-10)
B. ‘a woman’ (singular indefinite noun) (11-12)
C. ‘Eve’ (generic / representative woman) (13)
C. ‘the woman’ (generic / representative woman) (14)
B. ‘she’ has the antecedent ‘a woman’ (15a)
A. ‘they’ has the antecedent ‘women’ (15b)

I think this avoids any grammatical “impossibilities”.

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. But where is the documentation? Please. You have pushily repeated this claim ad nauseam. As Rene Descartes has said, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You have not met that burden.

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. 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 “Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11–15” in the Priscilla Papers (Summer 2003 17:3, page 4):

“Some translations have sought a way out by narrowing “women” and “men” to “wives” and “husbands” (e.g., Luther’s Bible [1545, 1912, 1984], Young’s Literal Translation [1898] , Charles B. Williams’ Translation [1937]). Lexically, this is certainly possible. Gyne¯ can mean either “woman” or “wife” and ane¯r can mean “man” or “husband” (see BDAG s.v.): “I permit no wife to teach or to have authority over her husband.” Yet, context determines usage, and “husband” and “wife” do not fit. “I want the men to pray . . .” (NASB, 1 Tim: 2:8) and “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 (“formed first,” “deceived and became a transgressor”).”

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).

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.

pinklight, hahaha. First, go back and see who you are quoting. Second, go back a read the reason I gave for Paul’s switch from plural to singular . . . then get back to me.

Cheryl says in her blog post “What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15?” under point #17: “The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12.”

But consider Numbers 30:4-5 in the LXX (the Greek OT):
“4 And if *a woman* shall vow a vow to the Lord, or bind herself with an obligation in her youth in her father’s house; and her father should hear her vows and her obligations, wherewith *she* has bound her soul, and her father should hold his peace at her, then all her vows shall stand, 5 and all the obligations with which she has bound her soul, shall remain to her.”

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. Apparently, the pronoun ‘she’ does not necessarily restrict the number of the antecedent to only one specific individual.

Cheryl: “It is impossible to remove the connection between ‘the woman’ and the anarthrous noun in verses 11 & 12”

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.

Cheryl: “’[S]he’ can never be the same thing as ‘they’. In other words ‘she’ cannot be ‘all women’ while at the same time ‘they’ is all women.”

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

So, in context, Paul is giving instructions for women. He switches from plural to generic singular but is still giving instructions for women. 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. The woman in verse 14 is Eve. So, the woman is representative of all women. ‘She’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14. All women are still in view here. ‘[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.

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. But it certainly appears that most, if not all, Greek experts have made no mention of any such rule here. 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.

Antecedents can be inferred from the text, as in this English example:

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.

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.

Terri Darbi Moore writes (in the previously referenced article): “The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.”

And: “Finally, the shift in number from the apodosis to the protasis, though often a “red herring” to exegetes of this verse, does not demand two different subjects for the elements. There are subtle shifts in subjects throughout the passage, yet the entire message is directed toward the believing women at Ephesus.”

So, I think you haven’t chosen your antecedents very well.

Don: “In Greek the presence of the definite article makes the noun definite, but the absence of the definite article does NOT necessarily make the noun indefinite, see Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. There is no indefinite article in Koine Greek, so there are 3 basic possibilities when the definite article is not used:
1. The noun is definite, even tho the article is not used to mandate this.
2. The noun is indefinite.
3. The noun is describing a group, of 1 or more that meet the quality.

The decision about which is the best fit is decided by context and there can be disagreement among scholars in some cases.”

Thanks for this. Don, your posts seem to be a little more sensible than others who post here. Although, I think Wallace uses the words “definite”, “indefinite”, and “qualitative” to describe the options for an anarthrous noun. It still leaves me wondering, if Paul had meant a specific woman and man, why didn’t he use the article?

Previously I quoted Rebecca Groothhuis who says, “I am not persuaded that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 speaks only to one specific woman. Although I suppose it could be possible, the Greek text does not clearly state this to be the case. As NT scholar Craig Blomberg explains it, although the nouns (“a woman,” “a man”) are singular, they “are indefinite; hence ‘I do not permit a woman to. . .over a man.’ The nouns thus become generic. If they were definite–‘I don’t permit the woman to. . .over the man,’ one could argue that one specific man and one specific woman were in view. But if I write, ‘I don’t permit a child to sleep on a concrete floor,’ I am making a more general statement about not allowing any child to sleep on any concrete floor. ‘I don’t permit children to sleep on concrete floors’ is the semantic equivalent, meaning exactly the same thing.”

My trouble is like Groothuis’ when she says “the Greek text does not clearly state this to be the case”, that is, the context does not indicate that a specific woman and a specific man are in view. In chapter 2 Paul is talking about conduct in the worship assembly rather than an individual household. He uses the plural forms for men and women in verses 8-10 to speak to them in general and gives no reason to think he has switched to a particular woman and man or a particular husband and wife. Unless Paul gives me a good enough reason to think he has switched, I would assume continuity in his meaning on this. If “a woman” and “a man” meant a wife and husband, then, as Grudem shows, there would be a decisive clue. Grudem gives these examples in EFBT (pages 297-298) to support the point:

“Romans 7:2: “A married (hupandros) woman”

1 Corinthians 7:2: “Each man should have his own (heautou) wife and each woman her own (idion) husband.”

1 Corinthians 7:12: “If any brother has (echei) a wife” (and the entire context of 1 Corinthians 7 is a discussion about marriage)

1 Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is bound to her (aut?s) husband as long as he lives”

Ephesians 5:22: “Wives submit to your own (idiois) husbands” (Some translations, such as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NLT, omit the word “own” but in doing so they fail to translate the Greek word idiois; everyone agrees that Ephesians 5 is talking about marriage)”

For more examples see 1 Cor. 14:35, 2 Cor. 11:2, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:12, 1 Tim 5:9, Titus 1:6, and Titus 2:5.

Given the fact there are decisive clues or qualifications in all of these verses that indicate a husband and/or wife is being spoken of, it seems safe to conclude that the lack of such specificity in 1 Timothy 2:12 indicates that Paul is speaking of men and women in general. Otherwise, he would give us a decisive clue as he did in the other places.

This claim that a specific husband and wife are being spoken of appears to be another ad hoc hypothesis designed to restrict the applicability of Paul’s proscription to one couple in the church, namely, the one couple, allegedly, that Paul is correcting.

Paula wrote: “I suppose I should spell out the circularity of your argument.

You say 1 Tim. 2 is about authority of all men over all women for all time because Paul refers to creation order.
You say creation order must therefore be about authority because Paul refers to it in 1 Tim. 2.

That’s a tautology.”

I’m not sure what you are getting at because if evaluate modus ponens with truth table, you will see that it is a tautology since all the values under the main connective are true.

Maybe you meant to say I’m question begging (a type of circular reasoning), if I read you right. But I am not. If Paul’s argument implies that the proscription (vs. 12) is in the OT, then his proscription really *is* in the OT. Patriarchalists accept the antecedent on Paul’s apostolic authority.

At any rate, you’ve horribly misrepresented my view. I’ve already said your reading comprehension is bad, and this helps to confirm it. I never said anything like “1 Tim. 2 is about authority of all men over all women for all time because Paul refers to creation order.”

Paula: “Hogwash. Show me where any scripture puts that interpretation into Genesis. Show me the scripture.”

You’ve failed to understand the nature of the argument. Partly, post #16 was intended to reveal the internal structure of the logic of egalitarian and patriarchalist arguments regarding 1 Timothy 2:12. The patriarchalist makes a modus ponens style argument and the egalitarian responds with a modus tollens. So, the patriarchalist accepts the view that verse 12 proscribes women from teaching and exercising authority over men, and that Paul makes this conclusion from OT teaching. Accepting this, and of course I realize you don’t, the patriarchalist naturally concludes that the proscription is implicit in the order of creation to which Paul appeals. After this, he needs only to reason back to the best explanation (an abductive argument) to understand what Paul probably meant . As far as the patriarchalist is concerned, your protestations about there being no such proscription in the order of creation or the OT anywhere puts you in conflict with the apostle Paul.

So, the scripture is 1 Timothy 2:12-14 (after the antecedent in [P2] is established). Regarding this, I’ve given arguments in post 31 under:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/

It is interesting to note that one of your own scholars, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis says, “I am not persuaded that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 speaks only to one specific woman. Although I suppose it could be possible, the Greek text does not clearly state this to be the case. As NT scholar Craig Blomberg explains it, although the nouns (“a woman,” “a man”) are singular, they “are indefinite; hence ‘I do not permit a woman to. . .over a man.’ The nouns thus become generic. If they were definite–‘I don’t permit the woman to. . .over the man,’ one could argue that one specific man and one specific woman were in view. But if I write, ‘I don’t permit a child to sleep on a concrete floor,’ I am making a more general statement about not allowing any child to sleep on any concrete floor. ‘I don’t permit children to sleep on concrete floors’ is the semantic equivalent, meaning exactly the same thing.” see: http://menandwomenleaderstogether.blogspot.com/2008/05/adam-and-eve-in-genesis-and-first.html

Up until verse 11 Paul has been giving instructions for men and women using the plurals “men” and “women”. He hasn’t ceased giving instructions to men and women by the change to the singular. The generic singular is used in verse 12 because Paul intends to connect with Eve as the representative of all women collectively.

Paula: “Again, truth and fact are not a matter of popularity, even among experts.”

The argument is a legitimate appeal to expert opinion. The fact that there is expert consensus serves to demonstrate that some quirky individual wasn’t chosen for the ‘expert’. As you know you can find an ‘expert’ to support almost any position you want to take but, by backing up the expert with a second opinion, peer review, or other experts, you can avoid committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. The ad populum fallacy is not an issue here.

Paula: “Even the example– ‘most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy’– can be and has been challenged due to evidence that it is a high carb diet that is unhealthy.”

I’m sure a high carb diet is unhealthy too. The dose makes the poison 😉 . But your counter-argument is irrelevant to the question. The fact that experts can make unsound judgments doesn’t make the appeal to expert opinion an invalid argument form. It just means the truthfulness of the expert’s claim should be judged on other grounds. All other things being considered equal, if someone can support their claims with expert opinions, the burden of proof shifts to the person without the support expert opinions.

Paula: “And who are the experts you appeal to? You did not name them.”

I’ve named and quoted a couple, but why is it necessary for me to name all the experts involved? This would be a huge task and one which space does not permit on this blog. It seems to me, thus far at least, that Terri Darbi Moore’s point that “[m]ost commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular” stands until a good argument can be made to reject it.

Now I know you guys have a peculiar take on the grammar in 1 Timothy 2:15, namely, your claims about the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’. It seems like you have a mental block in place when it comes to understanding what ‘she’ and ‘they’ are referring to, and I’m not sure how to get you past it. IMHO, Moore’s explanation was fairly clear. Are you saying that if ‘she’ refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14, then ‘the woman’ in verse 14 cannot be put for all women collectively because ‘she’ is grammatically singular? If so, please defend this claim.

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with John MacArthur when he says, “The salvation spoken of here is not salvation from sin. It cannot refer to Eve since the future tense is used (“she shall be saved”)” (see http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg54-17.htm). When ‘she’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14 it is not referring to the woman *as* Eve or *as* the woman herself but rather the woman as the representative of all women collectively. Using the singular ‘she’ is fine grammatically because ‘the woman’ in verse 14 is singular, but it should be understood that all women are meant because, conceptually, ‘the woman’ stands for all women. The plural ‘they’ in verse 15 refers to all women collectively.

Cheryl doesn’t like the idea that ‘she’ refers back to its nearest candidate for antecedents in verse 14 so she says, “The only ‘she’ in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is ‘a woman’ from verse 12.” But this is an ad hoc hypothesis designed to prevent her pet interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from being falsified. The fact that she has to go all the way back to verse 12 for an antecedent that works in her theory begins to reveal how weak her view really is. Generally, though I will certainly grant not always, the nearest antecedent is correct (note: I’m not thinking of demonstrative pronouns here). The patriarchalist view accepts the nearest antecedent.

Paula: “As you surely know, ‘most commentators’ is an appeal to popularity. ”

Not really. See http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html:
“If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., to remark that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, so that it follows that persons who have a high fat diet should change their eating habits, is to make a legitimate appeal.”

If a few of most commentators are nonexperts, this is no great moment since you still have a legitimate appeal to authority with the experts.

Paula: “Bible.org is staunchly male supremacist, and they are as biased as anyone.”

You’re poisoning the well. And I seriously doubt they are male supremacists. In my experience with others egalitarians, they believe that anyone who advocates role subordination for women teaches, by implication at least, that women are subhuman somehow. This perspective is practically axiomatic for them and warps their understanding of patriarchalism and complementarianism into something that is antithetical to what they actually teach.

Paula: “Again I challenge you to make sense out of claiming that Eve’s deception applies to anyone but her”

God made Adam a steward of moral life in the garden by giving him the garden mandate (Gen 2:15-17). God then declared that Adam was not sufficient to complete the tasks God had set before him alone (Gen 2:18). So, he created Eve to help him (Gen 2:21-23). Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate (Gen 3:6). When Eve reversed this order of creation (Adam first, given the mandate. Eve second, to help Adam) she opened herself up to Satan’s deception, ate the fruit, and fell into transgression. Adam followed Eve (again reversing the order of creation) and sinned too (Gen 3:6). Now, we all have to deal with the consequences of the fall. In the curse God had specific words for the man (Gen 3:17-19), and specific words for the woman (Gen 3:16).

This relates to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 this way: Men in the church today are to be stewards of the gospel as Adam was steward of the garden mandate. This responsibility for men has not ceased with Adam. We are still stewards of the gospel and women are not supposed to take over this responsibility lest they fall into deception like Eve did. If they fulfill their role as women (taking “childbearing” in verse 15 metonymically) continuing “in faith and love and holiness, with self-control”, then they will have protection from deception by the proper stewards of the gospel.

In context, proper stewardship of the gospel is necessary to prevent false teaching and deceptions. This is why Paul also says the elders of the church should be men.

Whew! This explanation is a little quick and dirty so I guess I’ll have to trust your reading comprehension to help make up for its lack of thoroughness. I know, I know. I’m taking an awful risk.

Paula: “You have acknowledged that the Greek verb has continuing consequences, but on whom? And the ‘she’ of vs. 15 is still that same woman, whom you say is Eve. Explain.”

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore writes:
“Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage.”

When you understand that “the woman” in verse 14 represents all women it makes sense for translators to translate verse 15 like this:

15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (TNIV)

15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)

15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (NASB)

Paula : “It’s all about deception or seduction; there is nothing about authority.”

Is this another negative you don’t have to prove? Apparently, you get to make all kinds of dogmatic assertions this way without ever having to produce a single piece of evidence to support them.

Paula: “Also note that when authorities disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to them.”

This is false. It’s not like competing authorities simply cancel each other out. Please. Besides, I’m kind of looking for the authorities Cheryl is using to support her arguments, especially on the specific points I’ve mentioned.

Cheryl, I’m not sure why you can’t read my IP, but I do run NoScript (its an anti-malware tool) on my computer so your sitemeter is being blocked. Why are you so determined to believe that I am Matt Slick or Diane?

Cheryl: “If you are not MS or DS why do you need to hide? My guess – you are the real thing – MS in person.”

Um, why would MS or DS need to hide?

Paula: “I am making a claim on a finite topic: the words contained in the Bible. I have examined it all and found it devoid of proof for your position.”

Thanks for confessing your ignorance but, given your wacky interpretation of my posts, I don’t trust your reading comprehension.

Paula: “That is, you claim proof exists so you must show it. ”

No. I don’t have to show it. It is sufficient for my argument to show *that* it is exists, not to show what it is or how Paul derives it. I’m taking it on Paul’s authority that it is there, implicitly at least, in the creation account.

You seem to be shifting the burden of proof:

Here is an example of this kind of bad logic from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html:

“Bill: ‘I think that some people have psychic powers.’
Jill: ‘What is your proof?’
Bill: ‘No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.'”

In this case:

Egal: There is no OT proscription against women teaching men.
Patriarch: What is your proof?
Egal: No one has been able to prove that there is such an OT proscription.

PS I’ve posted a response to Cheryl’s 1 Tim 2:11-15 position here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/

Paula: “‘Chris’, are you actually asking me to prove a negative?”

Yes, absolutely! Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason has shown that negative synthetic statements incur the burden of proof.

Paula: My assertion is grounded in fact, because no such scriptures exist, so in order to prove me wrong you only need to supply scriptures that prove otherwise.

You’re just saying that! Besides, I have supplied scripture to show otherwise. Paul refers to it in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. So, it is there.

There is no red herring here since this point is germane to my argument.

Paula wrote: “The fact remains that E2 is a true statement; no one can find scripture to show it to be false.”

This is just dogmatic assertion. How do you know there is no OT teaching that implies women are not to teach or exercise authority over men? And how do you know “no one can find scripture to show it to be false”?

I see you’ve layed out your view on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 here:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/

Because this is your most complete and organized treatment, I thought it would be best for me to respond there. I like to stay on the topic of the initial post as much as possible. Go to post 31.

Paula,

[P1] does not imply [P2]. [P2] and [P3], by modus ponens, implies [P4]. The warrant for [P3] should be obvious: The causal ‘gar’ in 1 Tim 2:13. Understanding my argument requires some understanding of the patriarchalist view. So, I’m asking you to accept some things to see where the internal logic of the view leads, and why Cheryl isn’t going to make much headway with her two witnesses requirement when speaking with patriarchalists.

I only grant [P1] for the sake of showing the logic of the patriarchalist argument. It is an assumption, the purpose of which is to show how patriarchalists can derive the conclusion that the OT teaches [P1] as well as the NT. Paula, you have misunderstood my argument.

Speaking of logic, it is ad hominem to call me a “male supremacist” and conceited.

Cheryl wrote: “Shall we dance?”

I warn you, I’ve had 4 years of ballroom dance instruction. I doubt you can keep up.

Oops your blog doesn’t read Greek fonts. “????” in the second paragraph is “gune”.

Cheryl,

I understand your position on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 to be that Paul is telling one specific wife in the church to stop teaching her husband false doctrine, and that verses 13-14 serve to illustrate Paul’s meaning. This position rests heavily first, on your claims that one specific wife is in view, and second, that the woman is teaching false doctrine. Your claim that one specific wife is in view is based on 1) the singular form ‘a woman’ in verses 11-12, 2) the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, and 3) your claim that Paul is talking about a husband and wife. Your claim that the woman is a false teacher is based on a contextual argument that depends largely on 1 Timothy 1:3ff.

As to the first point, the singular form ‘a woman’ presents no problem for the patriarchalist view. William D. Mounce writes in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (specifically 1 Timothy 2:11), “The anarthrous ????, ‘woman,’ functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth.” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118). This means that ‘a woman’ is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. In English, this means any woman.

Regarding the switch between ‘she’ and ‘they’ in verse 15, John Calvin writes in his commentary on Timothy, “As to the verb being plural, and the noun singular, this involves no difficulty; for an indefinite noun, at least when it denotes a multitude, has the force of a collective noun, and therefore easily admits a change from the singular to the plural number.” Similarly, Barnes New Testament Notes says, ““If they continue. If woman continues—it being not uncommon to change the singular form to the plural, especially if the subject spoken of have the character of a noun of multitude.”

Dr. Wayne Grudem has addressed the argument that Paul is talking about a husband and wife in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. You can read it online by going to:
http://www.efbt100.com/index.php (see pages 296 to 299 in chapter 8)

Insisting that ‘she’ in verse 15 is singular and refers back to ‘a woman’ in verse 12 would seem to imply that the order of creation in verses 13 to 14 is not meant to show a normative, universal principle, but is illustrative instead. This would require an illustrative use of ‘gar’ in verse 13 rather than causal, but see:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Causal-Gar-in-1-Timothy-2-13

Also, is there another place in the bible that uses the order of creation illustratively? When I look at Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, Ephesians 5:31, and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 I see normative teachings that are not restricted to just one situation. The appeal to creation implies that the principle Paul is teaching is transcultural, and that it is for all men and women.

Now you also claim that this wife is teaching false doctrine. This you say is based on context. Paul writes, “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (ESV). Here you have failed to adequately profile the ‘certain persons’ of which Paul is speaking. He says they are teaching ‘different doctrine’ and sets it in contrast to “sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (10-11). In 1 Timothy 6:3-5 Paul writes, “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.” Further, Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” You seem to be saying the wife who is teaching her husband false doctrine is one of these certain persons, but verse 15 says “she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” That’s a lot different than “let him be accursed” and how is this wife supposed to “continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” if she is like the heretics in 1 Timothy 6:3-5 and 1 Timothy 1:6-7?

In conclusion, I find nothing in your position that would make it preferable to the patriarchalist interpretation. Instead, you must prop it up with unlikely hypotheses like: ‘a woman’ means a specific wife, ‘she’ in verse 15 refers all the way back to ‘a woman’ in verse 12, the passage is speaking of a husband and wife, and ‘gar’ has an illustrative use. And, as far as I can tell, you haven’t cited any experts that can match John Calvin, Albert Barnes, or William Mounce on these issues.

PS Yes, I’m responding to an older blog post here, but this is probably your clearest and most complete layout of your position. I’ve read a few, not all of your posts on this, so I may be missing some arguments that you’ve made, though I don’t intend on responding to all of them anyway.

Hahaha! I’m not Diane. . . . I’m not Slick either.

see:
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=96420 (you may not be chattykathy, I don’t know, but she is making your arguments)

I use just last names sometimes because I’m a veteran, and we often used just last names. So don’t read too much into it.

Also note that I lost some formatting with a cut-n-paste. It’s not clear, but there is more than one paragraph in post 16.

I probably won’t have too much time to respond. I’m an applied math major at WMU and I have tests coming up.

My intent in post 16 is to show the logic of the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15 against your two witnesses requirement. So any egalitarian here who actually understands the patriarchalist view should realize *why* the two witnesses requirement will not be effective against the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15.

Schatz,
Regarding your two witness requirement, I’ve read Matt Slick’s response:
carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/only-one-verse-prohibits-women-teach-men-so-it-doesnt-apply-whole-church
And I’ve read Diane’s response to the argument at CARM’s discussion boards. In effect, the law requires two witnesses before a person can be found guilty in a court proceeding. This is different from requiring a law itself to be repeated twice in order to be valid.
But I have yet to find a satisfactory defense of your two witness requirement against Slick’s and Diane’s reproof. Nevertheless, and as far as the success of your argument is concerned, it wouldn’t matter if you were right in claiming that two witnesses are needed to establish the patriarchalist reading of 1 Tim 2:12 because a modus ponens argument can be made in favor of the claim that the proscription against women teaching men is found in the OT. Roughly, the patriarchalist argument runs like this:
[P1]Women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men. (1 Tim 2:12)
[P2] If [P1] is a conclusion Paul draws from OT teaching, then OT teaching (properly understood) implies [P1].
[P3] Paul appeals to (OT teaching) the creation and fall of Adam and Eve to justify [P1].
[P4] Therefore, the explicit NT proscription against women teaching men repeats the implicit OT proscription that Paul finds in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve.
Patriarchalists affirm the antecedent in [P2] because first, it is supported by the most natural reading of verses 12 to 14; second, this is the position the church has held to historically; and third, the proscription against women teaching in verse 12 is justified in Paul’s argument by an appeal to the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve in verses 13 and 14.
I understand that many egalitarians will take issue with the consequent in [P2]. They can find no teaching in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve or anywhere else in the OT that explicitly or implicitly teaches [P1]. Consequently, they argue that Paul is not proscribing women from teaching or exercising authority over men. The egalitarian argument runs like this:
[E1] If [P1] is a conclusion Paul draws from OT teaching, then OT teaching (properly understood) implies [P1].
[E2] There is no OT teaching that implies [P1].
[E3] Therefore, [P1] is false.
[E4] If [P1] is false, we have misunderstood 1 Tim 2:12.
The claim in [E2] is a strong claim, but if egalitarians want to establish the conclusion of this modus tollens argument with necessity, then [E2] must be this strong. The trouble is that [E2] is too strong. Egalitarians could tone it down to say something like:
[E2*] Egalitarians can find no OT teaching that implies [P1],
But this seems more like a criticism of their ability to understand the OT than a justification for rejecting [P1]. Even so, a patriarchalist might likewise claim he can find no OT teaching that implies [P1]. He can confess ignorance about how Paul derived his conclusion [P1] and still consistently maintain, according to the logic of the patriarchalist argument, that [P1] is true. Further, he can also maintain that the consequent of [P2] is true! If Paul says the teaching is there in the OT, who am I to challenge Paul? God forbid that I should be so intellectually arrogant as to suggest I know more about the OT than Paul does.
Now your understanding of 1 Tim 2:12 is different from that of most egalitarians. You might rewrite [P1] to say:
[P1*] There is one specific woman in the church who is not permitted to teach one specific man in the church.
If you replace [P1] with [P1*] in the patriarchalist argument, what you get is an extremely specific application of a general principle which is repeated in the OT. It is not clear how your two witnesses requirement becomes unsatisfied with respect to 1 Tim 2:12.